Was the use of atomic bombs on Japan by the US a war crime? [Azoth vs Halbard] Commentary Thread

[Randompigeon]

1) In total war their are no illegal targets, you are at war, a total war (look up the definition)

2) both bombings were aimed at legit military targets, they were key to the Japanese war effort, therefore the bombings were not aimed at civilians

3) You are trying to give laws and rules to war, it goes against all convention, it is war to give it rules is the most ironic idea, which I why i love it. It's like telling everyone on here that we can only debate using a list of sources. (bad analogy but it's all i can think of)

4) To compare these bombings to the holocaust is downright stupid, their are numerous differences. Would you Truman to Hitler? are they the same? because by your logic they are.

5) The Japanese needed to be battered and broken into submission to the point where they surrender and give up their ethos, this is what the atomic bombs achieved.

[visser300]

1) In total war their are no illegal targets, you are at war, a total war (look up the definition)

2) both bombings were aimed at legit military targets, they were key to the Japanese war effort, therefore the bombings were not aimed at civilians

3) You are trying to give laws and rules to war, it goes against all convention, it is war to give it rules is the most ironic idea, which I why i love it. It's like telling everyone on here that we can only debate using a list of sources. (bad analogy but it's all i can think of)

4) To compare these bombings to the holocaust is downright stupid, their are numerous differences. Would you Truman to Hitler? are they the same? because by your logic they are.

5) The Japanese needed to be battered and broken into submission to the point where they surrender and give up their ethos, this is what the atomic bombs achieved.

Why were there many Japanese commanders who convinced war crimes in La Hey?

[Randompigeon]

Why were there many Japanese commanders who convinced war crimes in La Hey?

Because the crimes they did were of no real military use and went against unwritten rules of war. The key difference between every Japanese war crime and the bombings is the fact that the bombings were aimed at military targets that were operational and it also had a purpose saved more lives than it killed. You may think this goes against point 1) but war crimes trials are done after the war. As stated before during Total war your actions are not governed by morality, something which during war crimes trials defines them.

And The Japanese commanders had no purpose behind it which to any extent could justify them. While the atomic bombings can be justified to whatever extent you believe. opinions differ.

If the same thing was done with conventional bombs would you perceive it as a war crime? I doubt you would.

[visser300]

Because the crimes they did were of no real military use and went against unwritten rules of war. The key difference between every Japanese war crime and the bombings is the fact that the bombings were aimed at military targets that were operational and it also had a purpose saved more lives than it killed. You may think this goes against point 1) but war crimes trials are done after the war. As stated before during Total war your actions are not governed by morality, something which during war crimes trials defines them.

And The Japanese commanders had no purpose behind it which to any extent could justify them. While the atomic bombings can be justified to whatever extent you believe. opinions differ.

If the same thing was done with conventional bombs would you perceive it as a war crime? I doubt you would.

In brief, winners define the rules!

[Ludicus]

Its whenever the use of the atomic bobms are legal or not.

Indeed, however, is that relevant? you see, it would be impossible to make them illegal.

basically be saying that the Japanese shouldn't be able to complain about the US using the atomic bombs and killing 450,000 civilians because the Japanese too targeted civilians.

A splendid deduction. Congratulations.

In total war their are no illegal targets,

Indeed. What really maters - the morality of the concept of total war, not the "legality"; the ethics, not the "legality".

---

both bombings were aimed at legit military targets

Common sense says: that´s the (official) pathetic subterfuge -and you know it:

6. Status of Targets

A. Dr. Stearns described the work he had done on target selection. He has surveyed possible targets possessing the following qualifications: (1) they be important targets in a large urban area of more than three miles diameter[/U][/B], (2) they be capable of being damaged effectively by a blast, and (3) they are likely to be unattacked by next August.

(1) Kyoto - This target is an urban industrial area with a population of 1,000,000. It is the former capital of Japan and many people and industries are now being moved there as other areas are being destroyed. From the psychological point of view there is the advantage that Kyoto is an intellectual center for Japan and the people there are more apt to appreciate the significance of such a weapon as the gadget. (Classified as an AA Target)

Take note, in summary, the city needed to be three miles in diameter, the city needed to be capable of being efficiently damaged by the blast, the target needed to be untouched by previous bombing missions, and the target had to have a large psychological effect on the Japanese (read above)
As you can see, Kyoto was strongly recommended, but Stimson had it taken off the target list for sentimental reasons ( Stimson, in spring 1945,asked McCloy, "Would you consider me a sentimental old man if I removed Kyoto from the list..?)"

----
HENRY STIMSON'S DIARY,
June 6, 1945 Diary Entry:
On June 6 Stimson met with President Truman. After discussing a problem regarding France that Stimson felt needed immediate attention, Stimson told Truman of the Interim Committee's recommendations:

"I told him that I was busy considering our conduct of the war against Japan and I told him how I was trying to hold the Air Force down to precision bombing [of military/industrial targets, rather than civilians] but that with the Japanese method of scattering its manufacture it was rather difficult to prevent area bombing. I told him I was anxious about this feature of the war for two reasons: first, because I did not want to have the United States get the reputation of outdoing Hitler in atrocities; and second, I was a little fearful that before we could get ready the Air Force might have Japan so thoroughly bombed out that the new weapon [the atomic bomb] would not have a fair background to show its strength. He laughed and said he understood"
-----
Take note, " would not have a fair background to show his strength"

[Vanoi]

Indeed, however, is that relevant? you see, it would be impossible to make them illegal.


A splendid deduction. Congratulations.


Indeed. What really maters - the morality of the concept of total war, not the "legality"; the ethics, not the "legality".

---

Common sense says: that´s the (official) pathetic subterfuge -and you know it:



Take note, in summary, the city needed to be three miles in diameter, the city needed to be capable of being efficiently damaged by the blast, the target needed to be untouched by previous bombing missions, and the target had to have a large psychological effect on the Japanese (read above)
As you can see, Kyoto was strongly recommended, but Stimson had it taken off the target list for sentimental reasons ( Stimson, in spring 1945,asked McCloy, "Would you consider me a sentimental old man if I removed Kyoto from the list..?)"

----
HENRY STIMSON'S DIARY,
June 6, 1945 Diary Entry:
On June 6 Stimson met with President Truman. After discussing a problem regarding France that Stimson felt needed immediate attention, Stimson told Truman of the Interim Committee's recommendations:

"I told him that I was busy considering our conduct of the war against Japan and I told him how I was trying to hold the Air Force down to precision bombing [of military/industrial targets, rather than civilians] but that with the Japanese method of scattering its manufacture it was rather difficult to prevent area bombing. I told him I was anxious about this feature of the war for two reasons: first, because I did not want to have the United States get the reputation of outdoing Hitler in atrocities; and second, I was a little fearful that before we could get ready the Air Force might have Japan so thoroughly bombed out that the new weapon [the atomic bomb] would not have a fair background to show its strength. He laughed and said he understood"
-----
Take note, " would not have a fair background to show his strength"

Morals do not belong in total war.

If morals is the best thing you have against the aotmic bomb, do you think the US should have invaded Japan which would have cost more lives than both the atomic bombs combined?

[brandbll]

There's an elephant in this thread, and it's called the incendiary bombings. If you're gonna argue about morals and civilian death and damage, please, focus on the elephant in the room....

[Cougar109]

Meh, sorry I took so long to respond to you guys who responded to me.

We can't know for sure the if and the future, the only thing that we see after unconditional surrendered peace, no big country try to do total war again vs another big country, they know the danger and the cost of total war. Compare with before unconditional surrendered kind of peace, every big country act war as game, if they failed now they can try again later, every 30-50 year we have big war, Napoleon, WW1, WW2, Crimean War, etc2.

I'll hit this since the is mostly the point. I'll respond first to my citing Unthinkable, which didn't happen for numerous reasons, the point I was making was that it's easy to take and isolate something and bend it into making a hypothetical a true possibility. If Churchill were 30 and the fittest man in the world Unthinkable still would have never happened, if the US had given white peace to Japan in 1945, WWIII would not have happened in the immediate future nor would it have started because of the deal given to Japan. There is more to politics and global power then what is written on a piece of paper. WWII allowed the US imposed itself in Asia and established it's dominance in the region and unlike the European powers post Versailles who were more interested in avoiding another war rather then enforcing their continent, they would continue to impose it. No matter what deal the US gave Japan, this is a fact that would not change.

The difference, nazy supporter is fringe movement, while lot's of Japan whitewashing is done by leading politician, more like if Merkel and most of mayor, and parlement member denied holocaust, saying German is not the aggressor in WW2 and all Nazy member who accused guilty of Holocaust is a saint, some school in Japan already try to whitewashed their ww2 history. It even take Japan 50 years to admit that they use Jugun Ianfu (forced comfort woman)

I'm not sure it's so much whitewashing as it is shame, embarrassment, fear, that type of thinking. Germany post WWII and even past the fall of the Iron Curtain was slow to erode it's suppression of anything related to or portraying Nazi Germany within pop culture. They don't deny it but at the same time it is a very uncomfortable subject and to this day they restrict movies, video games, and other pop culture realms which display or promote Nazi or even just WWII Germany paraphernalia even if it's ultimately innocent. Combine that with the fact that the Sino-Japanese relationship has been bitter and tense for a hell of a lot longer than 100 years, not excusable but understandable. But I don't understand what that really has anything to do with regards to the US giving anything other than unconditional surrender leading to WWII.

just want to point this out

You don't need support and backing when you have guns and an army or an army that can easily be convinced to join you. simple as that.

It is that simple, unfortunately you seem to be forgetting the fact that the vast majority of military leadership was no longer willing to support the handful of hardliners that remained and if you don't have the vast majority of leadership you don't have the army. This means they didn't have the guns and an army which means they would need support and backing, yet they didn't have that either. They'd fight the war so long as they were told to, but putting Emperor under house arrest and shooting the Suziki cabinet wasn't going to happen.

The "traditionalists" position and influence within the government and military was totally gone months before the bombs were dropped, this is an inarguable fact. The coup has a little more room for interpretation, but evidence doesn't indicate it had any substance and if it happened in any other country or at any other time it wouldn't be worth a footnote in a history book. Why people are so persistent with it I don't understand, it seems like the coup is brought up more as an imaginary trump card for added justification of the nukes when it's wholly unnecessary, rather then bringing the event up for actual discussion and determining it's actual relevance and impact in Japan at the time.

There's an elephant in this thread, and it's called the incendiary bombings. If you're gonna argue about morals and civilian death and damage, please, focus on the elephant in the room....

I think it's partly the difference between conventional and unconventional and partly the fact the last half of the 20th century was filled with so much BS propaganda on nuclear weapons and nuclear war in every major country that Goebbels would have been proud. Strategic bombing is seen acceptable simply because it is more common place, even though it caused far more damage both short and long term during WWII than a dozen nukes would have. People seem to focus more on the limited used of the nuclear weapons rather then the real devastation which was caused by unrestricted and nonprejudicial mass bombing campaigns.

[brandbll]

I think it's partly the difference between conventional and unconventional and partly the fact the last half of the 20th century was filled with so much BS propaganda on nuclear weapons and nuclear war in every major country that Goebbels would have been proud. Strategic bombing is seen acceptable simply because it is more common place, even though it caused far more damage both short and long term during WWII than a dozen nukes would have. People seem to focus more on the limited used of the nuclear weapons rather then the real devastation which was caused by unrestricted and nonprejudicial mass bombing campaigns.

Having a discussion about civilian casualties from American bombings without including incendiary bombings is just stupid.

On a side note, more innocent civilians were killed in WWII by Japanese swords than were killed by both nuclear bombs combined.

[Cougar109]

Having a discussion about civilian casualties from American bombings without including incendiary bombings is just stupid.

Sure, but sometimes it's tough for individuals to suppress cultural influences and biased perceptions. It's pounded into our minds from the day we can read that nuclear weapons are bad and it's easier to point out and argue two isolated incidents rather than thousands. It's stupid, but like I said that's just the way people are taught. Fear the nuclear bomb, not the napalm.

On a side note, more innocent civilians were killed in WWII by Japanese swords than were killed by both nuclear bombs combined.

The hell did you get that quirk?

[Ludicus]

incendiary bombings

All kind of cluster bombs,inhumane and indiscriminate weapons, make no exception.

If morals is the best thing you have against the aotmic bomb,

Yes, is the best thing. A good thing. How can we live ethically in an amoral world? millions of civilians came to be legitimate targets in the Second World War, and millions more civilians had lost their lives than soldiers. Talking about moral issues,is this wrong? yes, it is. why? because total war violates the principle the jus in bello,(just war) governed by the principle of descrimination/ distinction/proportionality/ and the principle of minimum force, that declares the immunity of noncombatants ("innocents") from direct attack.
John Rawls,
http://www.google.pt/url?sa=t&source...YfC1oSIAVL78fw
thinks the allied terror bombing of German cities in World War II (in the early stages) was legitimated by the enormity of the Nazi threat and the reasonable fear of its imminent triumph.
And yet, he endorsed this view while condemning the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
He is not alone; according to Michael Walzer,
http://www.google.pt/url?sa=t&source...AoSLblkXRyOauA
"in the later stages, it was just plain morally criminal since an Allied victory could be reasonably foreseen on the basis of morally legitimate targeting and fighting. The bombing of Dresden was therefore an outright atrocity, though the area bombing of other German cities earlier in the war was not"

----
What strange perversity is it that induces men to say,
"In this respect Kyoto has the advantage of the people being more highly intelligent and hence better able to appreciate the significance of the weapon"

[Vanoi]

All kind of cluster bombs,inhumane and indiscriminate weapons, make no exception.

Yes, is the best thing. A good thing. How can we live ethically in an amoral world? millions of civilians came to be legitimate targets in the Second World War, and millions more civilians had lost their lives than soldiers. Talking about moral issues,is this wrong? yes, it is. why? because total war violates the principle the jus in bello,(just war) governed by the principle of descrimination/ distinction/proportionality/ and the principle of minimum force, that declares the immunity of noncombatants ("innocents") from direct attack.
John Rawls,
http://www.google.pt/url?sa=t&source...YfC1oSIAVL78fw
thinks the allied terror bombing of German cities in World War II (in the early stages) was legitimated by the enormity of the Nazi threat and the reasonable fear of its imminent triumph.
And yet, he endorsed this view while condemning the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
He is not alone; according to Michael Walzer,
http://www.google.pt/url?sa=t&source...AoSLblkXRyOauA
"in the later stages, it was just plain morally criminal since an Allied victory could be reasonably foreseen on the basis of morally legitimate targeting and fighting. The bombing of Dresden was therefore an outright atrocity, though the area bombing of other German cities earlier in the war was not"

----
What strange perversity is it that induces men to say,
"In this respect Kyoto has the advantage of the people being more highly intelligent and hence better able to appreciate the significance of the weapon"

Answer the other half of my quesiton that you avoided. Do you think the US should have inavded Japan instead which would have cost millions of lives mroe than the atomic bomb?

[Cougar109]

Why is it people seem to believe the only two options available were atom bombs on major cities or invasion? Why was reaching out to one of Japan's feelers and at least talking not an option? Why wasn't the administration after Truman took over getting there organized and seeking a diplomatic route not an option? Why was inviting representatives from neutrals and/or Japanese envoys to the detonating of a nuclear bomb at the test site and allowing them to report to the Japanese government not an option? Why is not allowing the Soviets to plow through China and decimating the bulk of their army not an option? Why was getting involved with Konoe and discussing the possibility and offering support for a coup not an option? Why was total blockade and continued strategic bombardment not an option?

Please, someone enlighten me as to why the only two realistic options seemingly ever presented by amateurs are bombs or invasion when there is evidence to support at the very least all the options I listed above, and evidence which I'm sure would support even more which I haven't come across yet. Is it intellectual laziness, some vain and unnecessary attempt to defend the nukes? Do people just not feel like typing everything out and decide to cut out after invasion? If anyone has the answer please share, it's almost as perplexing as people ignoring the mass strategic bombing campaigns and instead going after the nukes as the real "atrocities" of the allies.

[Vanoi]

Why is it people seem to believe the only two options available were atom bombs on major cities or invasion? Why was reaching out to one of Japan's feelers and at least talking not an option? Why wasn't the administration after Truman took over getting there organized and seeking a diplomatic route not an option?

It was decided at the Cario Confederance between the Soviet union, Great Britan, and the U.S that they would only accept un-conditional surrender from both Germany and Japan. so no diplomacy was not an option.

Why was inviting representatives from neutrals and/or Japanese envoys to the detonating of a nuclear bomb at the test site and allowing them to report to the Japanese government not an option?

Yep. Lets invite our enemys to one of our weapon tests.

Why is not allowing the Soviets to plow through China and decimating the bulk of their army not an option?

Nope. Japan was still ready to defend its island without their army in China.

Why was getting involved with Konoe and discussing the possibility and offering support for a coup not an option?

nope, considering the U.S wanted to implement their own government in Japan, not have it re-placed. Besides the coup wouldn't have worked.

Why was total blockade and continued strategic bombardment not an option?

Blockade would have taken too long and why strategically keep on bombing cities and end up killing just as many people as the atomic bombs when you could just use the atomic bombs?

Please, someone enlighten me as to why the only two realistic options seemingly ever presented by amateurs are bombs or invasion when there is evidence to support at the very least all the options I listed above, and evidence which I'm sure would support even more which I haven't come across yet. Is it intellectual laziness, some vain and unnecessary attempt to defend the nukes?

You provided options the U.S wouldn't have done. Good job.

Do people just not feel like typing everything out and decide to cut out after invasion? If anyone has the answer please share, it's almost as perplexing as people ignoring the mass strategic bombing campaigns and instead going after the nukes as the real "atrocities" of the allies.

Nope, i just see the invasion as the only option the U.S would have chosen considering they were very close to almost doing it in the first place.

[Cougar109]

It was decided at the Cario Confederance between the Soviet union, Great Britan, and the U.S that they would only accept un-conditional surrender from both Germany and Japan. so no diplomacy was not an option.

The Cairo Conference sought 3 things, that Japan be stripped of the Pacific islands it had illegally seized since WWI, that the lands Japan had taken from China illegally be returned to the RoC, and that Korea be made independent. If these three things are obtained from a surrender exactly where did they fail in meeting the standards sought at the Cairo Conference?

Yep. Lets invite our enemys to one of our weapon tests.

Miss the neutrals part? Or is that not worth citing? How about warning Japan? No point in warning them? Warning them about the agreements at Postdam and the inevitable Soviet invasion? Nothing? just leave them out to rot? Cool.

Nope. Japan was still ready to defend its island without their army in China.

Hence why Japan was on their knees begging to Stalin the few months prior to his deceleration went to him asking to be mediator between Japan and the Allies and did everything in their power to keep relations as high as possible with the vain attempt to keep the NAP alive and even extended. Because they had absolutely zero care for the 3,000,000 some troops there which represented the majority of their forces and supplies.

The correct counter-argument would have been...

"It wasn't in anyway the Allies benefit to allow the Soivet Union to gain a serious foothold in China and strengthen their position at the bargaining table". That would have been a much more valid counter argument than they didn't care that most of their forces and resources were tied up in China.

nope, considering the U.S wanted to implement their own government in Japan, not have it re-placed. Besides the coup wouldn't have worked.

Right, that statement implies you know zero about Konoe. He was one of the few Japanese officials willing to accept an unconditional surrender long before the bombs dropped or Iwo Jima fell. After his blunders with China diplomatically at the Marco Polo Bridge incident and falling prey to complacency from the militaries early successes he took a much more active and aggressive politically against the military regime. He was one of the strongest opponents against war with the U.S. and was arguably the most important person in ousting Tojo from the position of prime minister in '44. He was one of the first to start contacting the US through neutrals and was one of the few willing to throw Hirohito under the bus, hell he committed suicide after the US threatened him with trump war crime charges after he refused to work with them on Operation Blacklist which was a program meant to dispose of incriminating evidence against Hirohito.

This was the ideal person to back because he would have signed and unconditional surrender and thrown the military and royal family to the wolves the second he took power. He actually had solid support and saw eye to eye with Suziki on a lot of things, really the only thing they differed on was Hirohito. The US gives him support and backs him fully I'd say there was greater than a 50/50 shot of the coup working. It certainly would have had more substance than the military coup but you and many others don't seem to have any issues bringing that one up.

Blockade would have taken too long and why strategically keep on bombing cities and end up killing just as many people as the atomic bombs when you could just use the atomic bombs?

Very, very difficult claim to make when so many people so much more informed than we cite various things

The USSBS said 4 months. Possibly earlier if we were willing to open diplomatic talks, obviously that didn't happen. Most top military officials at the time and in reflection believed the bombs were unnecessary and that with the Soviet's entry surrender was weeks, maybe months away at the most. Interestingly enough most of the support that the atomic bombs were the deciding factor and war would have dragged on long into 1946 and maybe '47 come from academia rather than military and government officials at the time.

What finally forced the Japanese to surrender? Was it air bombardment, naval power, the atomic bomb, or Soviet entry? The United States Strategic Bombing Survey concluded that Japan would have surrendered by the end of the year, without invasion and without the atomic bomb. [90] Other equally informed opinion maintained that it was the atomic bomb that forced Japan to surrender. "Without its use," Dr. Compton asserted, "the war would have continued for many months." [91] Admiral Nimitz believed firmly that the decisive factor was "the complete impunity with which the Pacific Fleet pounded Japan," and General Arnold claimed it was air bombardment that had brought Japan to the verge of collapse. [92] But Maj. Gen. Claire L. Chennault, wartime air commander in China, maintained that Soviet entry into the Far Eastern war brought about the surrender of Japan and would have done so "even if no atomic bombs had been dropped."

So who the hell really knows how long it would have taken or what actually caused it, I don't and these folks far more educated than myself can't seem to agree.

You provided options the U.S wouldn't have done. Good job.

Wouldn't have done makes them nonviable? The US would have never stepped foot on Japan's homeland for an invasion, the only major figures who fully supported an invasion 100% were Marshall and MacArthur, and anything MacArthur supports should automatically be regarded and unnecessary and possibly insane. The USAAF, the navy, Stimson (Who in reality had more sway in military matters than Truman), a number of army officials had hesitations. Couple this with the fact that the US populace and drafted or volunteer soldiers were tired of war by this time, telling them hundreds of thousands would be wounded or killed was going to be an incredibly tough sell and later on an even tougher defense once it became known it may have been unnecessary. It was drawn up and basic preparations were made but it had a similar stink to Sea Lion, lot's of preparations and planning but little actual support from the military leaders, estimates made it incredibly costly and would have cost more than the gain, and the objective was seen to be achievable through other means.

There's a lot of debate in academia as to whether an invasion would have actually been launched.

Nope, i just see the invasion as the only option the U.S would have chosen considering they were very close to almost doing it in the first place.

Okey doke.

[visser300]

Japanese bombed Pearl Habour with false diplomatic (they shown signals that peace is in progress but instead a fleet was on the way to blow the hell out of US sailors' asses). Consequently, I dont Think Americans want to end the war in diplomatic way.

I dont against the bombs, I just see that war crimes were just a joke that was written by winners.

[visser300]

Moreover, during the last year of the total war, three million people of indochina were dead by starvation due to the fact that Japanese gather crop to supply for their army in the region. If Yankees didnt stop the war in 1945, there were millions more would die.

[Cougar109]

Japanese bombed Pearl Habour with false diplomatic (they shown signals that peace is in progress but instead a fleet was on the way to blow the hell out of US sailors' asses). Consequently, I dont Think Americans want to end the war in diplomatic way.

I dont against the bombs, I just see that war crimes were just a joke that was written by winners.

Yes, yes. Evil Japanese bomb innocent and peace loving Americans even though America had been fighting a proxy war with Japan for three years through the RoC and diplomatic means. I understand the hate Pearl Harbor generated and why the government adopted the stance it did, but let's not pretend the US was buying into or abiding by the whole peace business. Made for some great spin though.

And I have no problems with the bombs, hell I believe I've said it was one of the better approaches the government could have taken all things considered, and if I haven't said it then I just did.

I just don't like when people dilute the incredibly complex and intricate state and process the Americans and Japanese government were going through down to the generic highschool textbook answers of "It was the bombs or an invasion", "The bombs were dropped to save lives", "The Japanese government never would have surrendered otherwise". It just doesn't do the realities of the time and situation proper justice and hand waives the fact that this is one of the most widely interpreted times in history for a legit reason.

Moreover, during the last year of the total war, three million people of indochina were dead by starvation due to the fact that Japanese gather crop to supply for their army in the region. If Yankees didnt stop the war in 1945, there were millions more would die.

And if the Allies actively perused peace and got talking with the more willing aspects of the Japanese government perhaps peace could have been obtained sooner, saving millions of lives.

Ah, hypothetical's and what if scenarios. Their fun never ceases.

[Randompigeon]

Ah, hypothetical's and what if scenarios. Their fun never ceases.

Lets talk facts.

1) the bombs saved more lives than they cost, no way about it this is true we have proved it, from Korea to China to America it saved lives, even if they did surrender at the end of the year it would have caused still would have had thousands of deaths.
2) Both cities were specifically chosen, the bombs were not dropped randomly they were done so for a reason.
3) In total war their is very little morality and it does not have any effect on any decision
4) War crimes trials are done after a war. so are judged by different standard's than if you were in a total war.
5) The Japanese ethos (Bushido) meant they were , i want to stress this point, extremely unlikely that they would have surrendered. Noticed though their was a chance.
Few side notes

not the "legality"; the ethics, not the "legality".

You are judging their actions from you standards, your situation and your society not by theirs.

Common sense says: that´s the (official) pathetic subterfuge -and you know it:

look up your history both cities were major industrial areas. Common sense also says that you wouldn't randomly drop a powerful bomb just anywhere

Allies actively perused peace and got talking with the more willing aspects of the Japanese government perhaps peace could have been obtained sooner

Sound logic and perhaps it should have been done, hindsight is a great thing. But the Allies wanted unconditional surrender something i doubt they would have gotten through peace talks, look at WW1, the armistice and the Treaty of Versailles, In my opinion if the Allies had achieved peace talks, that sort of thing would have happened.


As someone has mentioned before, what i find weird from all those who believe the bombings is a war crime and that another approach should have been taken, is that you have singled out one action (apart from Cougar109, from what i see in his last post

one of the better approaches

from what i understand he sees that the bombings were a better approach). And yet when people bring up the incendiary bombings you go quiet or say oh they couldn't be as bad as the Atomic bombs. Incendiary would have caused equal if not more deaths. Those that believe the bombs to be a war crime, either believe all war is a crime or not, you can't have it both ways. Your bending your morality to fit the argument. This is what i see, and I expect to be shouted at for it.

now i have asked this question about 5 times and haven't got an answer yet
How could the War have been ended without the Atomic bombs which would have saved more lives?

[Vanoi]

The Cairo Conference sought 3 things, that Japan be stripped of the Pacific islands it had illegally seized since WWI, that the lands Japan had taken from China illegally be returned to the RoC, and that Korea be made independent. If these three things are obtained from a surrender exactly where did they fail in meeting the standards sought at the Cairo Conference?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cairo_Conference

The Cairo Declaration was signed on 27 November 1943 and released in a Cairo Communiqué through radio on 1 December 1943,[3]stating the Allies' intentions to continue deploying military force until Japan's unconditional surrender.

That was the main thing they sought.

Miss the neutrals part? Or is that not worth citing? How about warning Japan? No point in warning them? Warning them about the agreements at Postdam and the inevitable Soviet invasion? Nothing? just leave them out to rot? Cool.

Why tell neutrals? Why warn Japan about a weapon we may be using on them? Its war. Also have you ever heard of the Postdam Declaration? The US basically announced the terms of Japan's un-conditional surrender to the world. The Japanese did know about Postdam already. I don't think they knew about the Soviet invasion, but again its war.

I don't get why the US should be warning Japan on anything it was going to do, or the Soviets were going to do. You don't warn your enemy of your next move.

Hence why Japan was on their knees begging to Stalin the few months prior to his deceleration went to him asking to be mediator between Japan and the Allies and did everything in their power to keep relations as high as possible with the vain attempt to keep the NAP alive and even extended. Because they had absolutely zero care for the 3,000,000 some troops there which represented the majority of their forces and supplies.

Soviets never intended to be a mediator. they did plan to invade Japanese territory though. Lack of supplies didn't keep the Japanese on Iwo Jima from causing more casualities to American soldiers than they recieved in return.

Right, that statement implies you know zero about Konoe. He was one of the few Japanese officials willing to accept an unconditional surrender long before the bombs dropped or Iwo Jima fell. After his blunders with China diplomatically at the Marco Polo Bridge incident and falling prey to complacency from the militaries early successes he took a much more active and aggressive politically against the military regime. He was one of the strongest opponents against war with the U.S. and was arguably the most important person in ousting Tojo from the position of prime minister in '44. He was one of the first to start contacting the US through neutrals and was one of the few willing to throw Hirohito under the bus, hell he committed suicide after the US threatened him with trump war crime charges after he refused to work with them on Operation Blacklist which was a program meant to dispose of incriminating evidence against Hirohito.

You obviously don't know much about the leadership of Japan in 1945. Konoe could have been poular all he wanted, he had no power though to attempt a coup. Most of the Japanese military leaders did not want to surrender. The military leaders of Japan had the support of the Army, Konoe did not. Besides the US needed Hirohito in the end for Japan.

Very, very difficult claim to make when so many people so much more informed than we cite various things

The USSBS said 4 months. Possibly earlier if we were willing to open diplomatic talks, obviously that didn't happen. Most top military officials at the time and in reflection believed the bombs were unnecessary and that with the Soviet's entry surrender was weeks, maybe months away at the most. Interestingly enough most of the support that the atomic bombs were the deciding factor and war would have dragged on long into 1946 and maybe '47 come from academia rather than military and government officials at the time.

As famously said by those who supproted the invasion of Japan, a blockade chokes, it does not kill. Again the Japanese did welland fine on Iwo Jima when thye were very short of food, and short on food. I don't see why Japan couldn't have managed. So i doubt it would tak eonly 4 months. It would take much longer.

Wouldn't have done makes them nonviable? The US would have never stepped foot on Japan's homeland for an invasion, the only major figures who fully supported an invasion 100% were Marshall and MacArthur, and anything MacArthur supports should automatically be regarded and unnecessary and possibly insane.

Marshall and MacArthur knew what it would take to defeat Japan though. Like i said, it was unconditional surrender, or no surrender.

The USAAF, the navy, Stimson (Who in reality had more sway in military matters than Truman), a number of army officials had hesitations. Couple this with the fact that the US populace and drafted or volunteer soldiers were tired of war by this time, telling them hundreds of thousands would be wounded or killed was going to be an incredibly tough sell and later on an even tougher defense once it became known it may have been unnecessary. It was drawn up and basic preparations were made but it had a similar stink to Sea Lion, lot's of preparations and planning but little actual support from the military leaders, estimates made it incredibly costly and would have cost more than the gain, and the objective was seen to be achievable through other means.

There's a lot of debate in academia as to whether an invasion would have actually been launched.

Okey doke.

Considering they were informing troops in europe about it, had specific invasion plans and casuality reports, had estimated troop strengths, (which some were wrong. The US under-estimated what Japan was capable of) and even made over 500,000 purple hearts for the number of casualities they would take, i would say they were serious about an invasion.