View Poll Results: Did the US commit a war crime by using the atomic bombs on Japan?

Voters
104. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes they commited a war crime.

    40 38.46%
  • No, they didn't commit a war crime.

    61 58.65%
  • Can't decide/other (please state)

    3 2.88%
Page 5 of 12 FirstFirst 123456789101112 LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 240

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

  1. #81
    TheDarkKnight's Avatar Compliance will be rewarded
    Moderator Emeritus Content Emeritus Administrator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    The good (not South) part of the USA
    Posts
    11,632
    Blog Entries
    12

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

    With what the U.S. government had at the time, how can you blame them?

    They believed that Japan would have fought to the death. Post-war research revealed that the Japanese had a plan to repel an invasion, and they guessed EXACTLY where the US and allies would have landed had the invasion occurred. They would have sent kamikaze planes to destroy transports, killing hundreds or thousands of Allied soldiers for a handful of inexperienced pilots for each ship. They would have defended the EXACT beaches that the Allies were planning on landing at, and would have put forth almost all manpower to the effort. In addition to all this, Allied planes would have continuously hammered the cities of Japan with incendiary bombs, incinerating the paper and wood houses of the Japanese citizen as well as the citizen itself. The invasion would have likely yielded a million casualties just at the outset on just the Allied side...Our government is STILL using the surplus Purple Hearts minted in anticipation for this invasion for newly wounded soldiers in our current conflicts...

    Whether you believe that it was a war crime or not, the bombs saved far more lives than they destroyed.
    Things I trust more than American conservatives:

    Drinks from Bill Cosby, Flint Michigan tap water, Plane rides from Al Qaeda, Anything on the menu at Chipotle, Medical procedures from Mengele

  2. #82
    Lord Rahl's Avatar Behold the Beard
    Content Emeritus

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    The stars at night are big and bright!
    Posts
    13,779

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Himster View Post
    There's no point: it should be obvious. If it's not obvious then it's likely you could suffer from some form of psychopathy in which case my elaboration would be dismissed as "irrational", but then again practically all human interaction is "irrational" to a psycopath.

    So either way lies futility.

    That's not an expansion on your reply.

    Patron of: Ó Cathasaigh, Major. Stupidity, Kscott, Major König, Nationalist_Cause, Kleos, Rush Limbaugh, General_Curtis_LeMay, and NIKO_TWOW.RU | Patronized by: MadBurgerMaker
    Opifex, Civitate, ex-CdeC, Ex-Urbanis Legio, Ex-Quaestor, Ex-Helios Editor, Sig God, Skin Creator & Badge Forger
    I may be back... | @BeardedRiker

  3. #83
    Jaketh's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    8,973

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Himster View Post




    So mass murder is easily permissible in war-time in your opinions? Would the holocaust have been ok if bombs had been used instead of gas and bullets and death-marches?
    No its not but i believe the Japanese got off relatively easy after the atrocious crimes they commited to prisoners of war and the Chinese to name a few

  4. #84
    Himster's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Dublin, The Peoples Republic of Ireland
    Posts
    9,838

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Azoth View Post
    Just curious Himster, what do you think the US should have done on this situation? Do you still think the US should have used the bombs, or done something else?
    The US quite correctly sacrificed her soul to save her people, that doesn't mean mass murdering defenseless unarmed civilians (including women and children) is a "good" thing; maybe those women and children deserved it, but I can't see how.

    A lesser evil was comitted, but an evil none-the-less, no matter how it's rationalised, children were burned alive to save american men.
    The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are so certain of themselves, but wiser people are full of doubts.
    -Betrand Russell

  5. #85
    Lord Rahl's Avatar Behold the Beard
    Content Emeritus

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    The stars at night are big and bright!
    Posts
    13,779

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

    Himster, you still haven't explained yourself. Of course the civilians being killed was terrible. No one is arguing that. But what proponents of the atomic bombs were unjustified idea need to do is more than say, "It killed civilians." That doesn't take much into consideration except just straight morals. Historical context is a must for this debate.

    If killing civilians, let along bombing them, is unjustified then everyone involved in WWII is guilty of that. So then where do you start? WWII in many ways was a total war and there were not the same ethics applied to it as there are today.

    So the USA's atomic bombs killed civilians. Alright, but the Germans bombed civilians too. So did the Japanese! Oh, but so did the British. That means that everyone did the same thing. What you may fail to realize is that in the ethics of WWII civilians were legitimate targets in strategic bombing. But what makes the atomic bombs different? It took one plane and one bomb to do as much damage as hundreds of bombers and thousands of bombs. How exactly does that make it "worse"? Like I said, the difference is that we think of nuclear weapons as more "scary" than conventional weapons. That's really the only reason why some people think they were unjustified.

    Think of it this way. Let's say the atomic bombs were not used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Those two cities were left relatively untouched by strategic bombing because they were chosen as possible targets for using the new atomic bombs. So if those bombs weren't used then those cities would still have been bombed and devastated, causing thousands of civilian casualties. Are you going to say the use of thousands of explosive and incendiary bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki would really have been much different?

    But this will make you feel better: Ryuichi Shimoda et al. v. The State
    Last edited by Lord Rahl; August 10, 2011 at 05:09 AM.

    Patron of: Ó Cathasaigh, Major. Stupidity, Kscott, Major König, Nationalist_Cause, Kleos, Rush Limbaugh, General_Curtis_LeMay, and NIKO_TWOW.RU | Patronized by: MadBurgerMaker
    Opifex, Civitate, ex-CdeC, Ex-Urbanis Legio, Ex-Quaestor, Ex-Helios Editor, Sig God, Skin Creator & Badge Forger
    I may be back... | @BeardedRiker

  6. #86
    Himster's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Dublin, The Peoples Republic of Ireland
    Posts
    9,838

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Rahl View Post
    Himster, you still haven't explained yourself. Of course the civilians being killed was terrible. No one is arguing that. But what proponents of the atomic bombs were unjustified idea need to do is more than say, "It killed civilians." That doesn't take much into consideration except just straight morals. Historical context is a must for this debate.
    What's the difference between massacaring civillians with gas and massacaring civilians with bombs?
    Answer: One would get you hanged, the other would you get a medal.

    If killing civilians, let along bombing them, is unjustified then everyone involved in WWII is guilty of that. So then where do you start? WWII in many ways was a total war and there were not the same ethics applied to it as there are today
    .

    Sure.

    So the USA's atomic bombs killed civilians. Alright, but the Germans bombed civilians too. So did the Japanese!
    Right, but the germans were put on trial for bombing and gasing innocent civillians.

    Oh, but so did the British. That means that everyone did the same thing. What you may fail to realize is that in the ethics of WWII civilians were legitimate targets in strategic bombing. But what makes the atomic bombs different? It took one plane and one bomb to do as much damage as hundreds of bombers and thousands of bombs. How exactly does that make it "worse"? Like I said, the difference is that we think of nuclear weapons as more "scary" than conventional weapons. That's really the only reason why some people think they were unjustified.
    Targeting civilians was never legitimate, collatoral damage was unavoidable, but targeting civilians would have lowered the allies to the villanous level of the axis powers destroying the values that allied soldiers fought and died for.

    Think of it this way. Let's say the atomic bombs were not used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Those two cities were left relatively untouched by strategic bombing because they were chosen as possible targets for using the new atomic bombs. So if those bombs weren't used then those cities would still have been bombed and devastated, causing thousands of civilian casualties. Are you going to say the use of thousands of explosive and incendiary bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki would really have been much different?
    Incendiary bombs are worse......in the short term anyway.
    The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are so certain of themselves, but wiser people are full of doubts.
    -Betrand Russell

  7. #87
    Lord Rahl's Avatar Behold the Beard
    Content Emeritus

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    The stars at night are big and bright!
    Posts
    13,779

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Himster View Post
    What's the difference between massacaring civillians with gas and massacaring civilians with bombs?
    Answer: One would get you hanged, the other would you get a medal.

    Chemical weapons are banned by international law. Bombs are not. Chemical weapons don't blow up factories either. The use of bombs doesn't make for medals. A soldier's action does.
    .
    Sure.

    Is that you agreeing with my arguments or simply accepting them as such?

    Right, but the germans were put on trial for bombing and gasing innocent civillians.

    The Germans were put on trial for bombing France, England, and Russia? I'm not saying the Allies didn't commit atrocities and weren't under the same scrutiny as the Axis were but, again, historical context plays a big part in this.

    Targeting civilians was never legitimate, collatoral damage was unavoidable, but targeting civilians would have lowered the allies to the villanous level of the axis powers destroying the values that allied soldiers fought and died for.

    I agree. Some Allied commanders believed strategic bombing would severely reduce civilian morale and willingness to continue the war when in actuality it increased it. All I'm saying is that strategic bombing in WWII, and the targeting of civilians, happened (obviously) and was by some thought to be entirely legitimate, especially if you accept the concept of total war.

    Incendiary bombs are worse......in the short term anyway.

    The tactic was to use a mix of explosive and incendiary. The explosive bombs destroy the buildings, making them easier to catch fire. In Japan incendiaries worked very well since many buildings were made of wood. My point was those cities would have been bombed anyway.

    Patron of: Ó Cathasaigh, Major. Stupidity, Kscott, Major König, Nationalist_Cause, Kleos, Rush Limbaugh, General_Curtis_LeMay, and NIKO_TWOW.RU | Patronized by: MadBurgerMaker
    Opifex, Civitate, ex-CdeC, Ex-Urbanis Legio, Ex-Quaestor, Ex-Helios Editor, Sig God, Skin Creator & Badge Forger
    I may be back... | @BeardedRiker

  8. #88

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

    I'm not even sure why this topic is still debated. Dropping the atomic bombs were the best thing that could have come out of that whole scenario. First and foremost, the whole focus of atomic bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima as a war crime is misguided at best. If those events were war crimes than the other fire bombings we committed in Japan (i.e. Tokyo) are war crimes as well and caused SIGNIFICANTLY more casualties. The method doesn't matter, it just doesn't. They both accomplished the same effect. So if you're gonna make a case for war crimes, at least focus on the right matter.

    Second, dropping the atomic bombs led to less casualties sustained by BOTH sides in the long run. If you don't drop the bombs you have a prolonged war that causes more military AND civilian deaths for Japan and more military deaths for the Allies. The other thing to consider is that a prolonged war could have also increased the recovery time for Japan.

    Last but not least, the effect they had on the future of the world. What if we hadn't dropped those bombs? Hiroshima and Nagasaki had the unfortunate chance of letting the world see the horrors of what happens when you actually use nuclear weapons. I cannot imagine what the outcome of a nuclear arms race would have been had an example not been made of their power prior to the actual stockpiling of said weapons. Not to mention, they came at the END of a significant war. Can you imagine if they had not been used, WWII ends, and then they get used at the beginning of another war? We could have seen a hell of a lot more bombs dropped by now. But, as it stands, thanks to the examples of Nagasaki and Hiroshima we haven't seen a single nuclear bomb dropped on another city. Those bombings have essentially been a key factor in keeping humanity out of another world war.

  9. #89
    Himster's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Dublin, The Peoples Republic of Ireland
    Posts
    9,838

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

    It must be nice to be able to view burning women and children as a statistic. Inhuman rationality is an attribute I've longed for.
    The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are so certain of themselves, but wiser people are full of doubts.
    -Betrand Russell

  10. #90

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Himster View Post
    It must be nice to be able to view burning women and children as a statistic. Inhuman rationality is an attribute I've longed for.
    In order to be an objective observer of history it's important to detach yourself from the emotion of the event. Appealing to Emotion in and of itself is a logical fallacy.

  11. #91
    Vanoi's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Civitate

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    17,268

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Himster View Post
    The US quite correctly sacrificed her soul to save her people, that doesn't mean mass murdering defenseless unarmed civilians (including women and children) is a "good" thing; maybe those women and children deserved it, but I can't see how.

    A lesser evil was comitted, but an evil none-the-less, no matter how it's rationalised, children were burned alive to save american men.
    These bombs were nto just used to save the lives of the soldiers who would have to invade. It saved the lives of other Allied soldiers that would be helping in the invasion, and it saved Japanese lives too. Predicted Japanese casualties for the invasion of Japan were 5 million to 10 million people and soldiers. Those bombs saved many more lives than they lost.


    Also, just to correct you on one of your points, no side was charged for war crimes for bombing each other's cities during WWII. Germany was not charged for bombing Great Britan during the Blitz, or were they charged for using the V-1 and V-2 weapons against Great Britan.
    Best/Worst quotes of TWC

    Quote Originally Posted by Kyriakos View Post
    While you are at it, allow Germany to rearm, it's not like they committed the worst atrocity in modern history, so having a strong army can't lead to anything pitiful.

  12. #92

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

    The bombing of civilian centers in German in the last few months before VE day is actually a more controversial subject than the bombing campaign in Japan.

    Japans imminent defeat was never apparent, allied armies were not racing through their heartland, and indeed the long and bloody island hopping campaign was still grinding along. In contrast, resistance in Germany collapsed in the spring of 1945 and victory was inevitable.

    Dresden for example was right about to fall to soviet forces when it was bombed. It's destruction and the tens of thousands of civilian deaths were arguably entirely avoidable and unecissary to the war effort.

  13. #93
    Halbard's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Lisboa
    Posts
    1,652

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

    I reckon you lot should discuss the juridical aspect of the matter, since it is the main topic here Not whether it was the best choice or not.

    Does a nuclear attack on a primarily civilian target constitute a war crime? i've already presented my theory, and i believe it indeed does.
    What makes a real American? A cowboy hat? Enjoying a fine T-bone
    steak? Going to a baseball game? Shooting a gun? Maybe it’s the freedom to go
    into a poor country and tell them how to do things?! Heh! Those are all great
    qualities! But one thing that makes a true patriot is the ability to choose
    an American car! When you buy an import you take a hot meal off a hard
    working American’s table. There, there! This poor girl is going
    to starve to death, just because you bought a cheaper, more efficient
    Maibazu. Without gross symbols of excess, what will Americans have to look up
    to? Our great industries is a threaten! Cars, pornography, armaments! And
    they need your help! So the next time you buy a car, a piece of adult
    literature or a missile defense system! Make sure you do the American thing!

  14. #94
    Himster's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Dublin, The Peoples Republic of Ireland
    Posts
    9,838

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

    If the nazis used bombs to kill jews that would have been morally accpetable? After all they sincerely believed they were protecting their people by doing so and were at war with them. What's the difference?

    Particularly considering: "The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan." Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet
    One day before the bombing of Nagasaki, the Emperor notified Foreign Minister Shigenori Tōgō of his desire to "insure a prompt ending of hostilities". Togo wrote in his memoir that the Emperor "warned [him] that since we could no longer continue the struggle, now that a weapon of this devastating power was used against us, we should not let slip the opportunity [to end the war] by engaging in attempts to gain more favorable conditions." The Emperor then requested Togo to communicate his wishes to the Prime Minister.

    It was clearly a terrorist attack, not against Japan, but against the world in it's entirety, the world's most successful mass-murder.

    Also, just to correct you on one of your points, no side was charged for war crimes for bombing each other's cities during WWII. Germany was not charged for bombing Great Britan during the Blitz, or were they charged for using the V-1 and V-2 weapons against Great Britan.
    I didn't say they were, I said many were hanged for murdering civilians, I was also looking for a distinction between shooting a child in the head and dropping a bomb on it's head.
    The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are so certain of themselves, but wiser people are full of doubts.
    -Betrand Russell

  15. #95
    Vanoi's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Civitate

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    17,268

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Himster View Post
    If the nazis used bombs to kill jews that would have been morally accpetable? After all they sincerely believed they were protecting their people by doing so and were at war with them. What's the difference?

    Particularly considering: "The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan." Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet
    One day before the bombing of Nagasaki, the Emperor notified Foreign Minister Shigenori Tōgō of his desire to "insure a prompt ending of hostilities". Togo wrote in his memoir that the Emperor "warned [him] that since we could no longer continue the struggle, now that a weapon of this devastating power was used against us, we should not let slip the opportunity [to end the war] by engaging in attempts to gain more favorable conditions." The Emperor then requested Togo to communicate his wishes to the Prime Minister.

    It was clearly a terrorist attack, not against Japan, but against the world in it's entirety, the world's most successful mass-murder.
    You need to look towards Halbard's and my discussion in the fight club because i have already addresed those points above.
    Best/Worst quotes of TWC

    Quote Originally Posted by Kyriakos View Post
    While you are at it, allow Germany to rearm, it's not like they committed the worst atrocity in modern history, so having a strong army can't lead to anything pitiful.

  16. #96
    Protector Domesticus
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    4,045

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

    *sighs*

    Time for some posters here to face the hard truth regarding the use of Fatman and Little Boy on Japan.

    Compared to the alternative (full scale invasion via Operation Downfall) Japan very likely wouldn't exist as the country it does today.

    In the first invasion - code named Operation Olympic - American combat troops would land on Japan by amphibious assault during the early morning hours of November 1, 1945 - 50 years ago. Fourteen combat divisions of soldiers and Marines would land on heavily fortified and defended Kyushu, the southernmost of the Japanese home islands, after an unprecedented naval and aerial bombardment.

    The second invasion on March 1, 1946 - code named Operation Coronet - would send at least 22 divisions against 1 million Japanese defenders on the main island of Honshu and the Tokyo Plain. It's goal: the unconditional surrender of Japan. With the exception of a part of the British Pacific Fleet, Operation Downfall was to be a strictly American operation. It called for using the entire Marine Corps, the entire Pacific Navy, elements of the 7th Army Air Force, the 8 Air Force (recently redeployed from Europe), 10th Air Force and the American Far Eastern Air Force. More than 1.5 million combat soldiers, with 3 million more in support or more than 40% of all servicemen still in uniform in 1945 - would be directly involved in the two amphibious assaults. Casualties were expected to be extremely heavy.
    Admiral William Leahy estimated that there would be more than 250,000 Americans killed or wounded on Kyushu alone. General Charles Willoughby, chief of intelligence for General Douglas MacArthur, the Supreme Commander of the Southwest Pacific, estimated American casualties would be one million men by the fall of 1946. Willoughby's own intelligence staff considered this to be a conservative estimate.

    During the summer of 1945, America had little time to prepare for such an endeavor, but top military leaders were in almost unanimous agreement that an invasion was necessary.

    While naval blockade and strategic bombing of Japan was considered to be useful, General MacArthur, for instance, did not believe a blockade would bring about an unconditional surrender. The advocates for invasion agreed that while a naval blockade chokes, it does not kill; and though strategic bombing might destroy cities, it leaves whole armies intact.

    So on May 25, 1945, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, after extensive deliberation, issued to General MacArthur, Admiral Chester Nimitz, and Army Air Force General Henry Arnold, the top secret directive to proceed with the invasion of Kyushu. The target date was after the typhoon season.
    President Truman approved the plans for the invasions July 24. Two days later, the United Nations issued the Potsdam Proclamation, which called upon Japan to surrender unconditionally or face total destruction. Three days later, the Japanese governmental news agency broadcast to the world that Japan would ignore the proclamation and would refuse to surrender. During this sane period it was learned -- via monitoring Japanese radio broadcasts -- that Japan had closed all schools and mobilized its schoolchildren, was arming its civilian population and was fortifying caves and building underground defenses.
    Operation Olympic called for a four pronged assault on Kyushu. Its purpose was to seize and control the southern one-third of that island and establish naval and air bases, to tighten the naval blockade of the home islands, to destroy units of the main Japanese army and to support the later invasion of the Tokyo Plain.

    The preliminary invasion would began October 27 when the 40th Infantry Division would land on a series of small islands west and southwest of Kyushu. At the same time, the 158th Regimental Combat Team would invade and occupy a small island 28 miles south of Kyushu. On these islands, seaplane bases would be established and radar would be set up to provide advance air warning for the invasion fleet, to serve as fighter direction centers for the carrier-based aircraft and to provide an emergency anchorage for the invasion fleet, should things not go well on the day of the invasion. As the invasion grew imminent, the massive firepower of the Navy - the Third and Fifth Fleets -- would approach Japan. The Third Fleet, under Admiral William "Bull" Halsey, with its big guns and naval aircraft, would provide strategic support for the operation against Honshu and Hokkaido. Halsey's fleet would be composed of battleships, heavy cruisers, destroyers, dozens of support ships and three fast carrier task groups. From these carriers, hundreds of Navy fighters, dive bombers and torpedo planes would hit targets all over the island of Honshu. The 3,000 ship Fifth Fleet, under Admiral Raymond Spruance, would carry the invasion troops.

    Several days before the invasion, the battleships, heavy cruisers and destroyers would pour thousands of tons of high explosives into the target areas. They would not cease the bombardment until after the land forces had been launched. During the early morning hours of November 1, the invasion would begin. Thousands of soldiers and Marines would pour ashore on beaches all along the eastern, southeastern, southern and western coasts of Kyushu. Waves of Helldivers, Dauntless dive bombers, Avengers, Corsairs, and Hellcats from 66 aircraft carriers would bomb, rocket and strafe enemy defenses, gun emplacements and troop concentrations along the beaches.

    The Eastern Assault Force consisting of the 25th, 33rd and 41st Infantry Divisions would land near Miyaski, at beaches called Austin, Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, Chrysler, and Ford, and move inland to attempt to capture the city and its nearby airfield. The Southern Assault Force, consisting of the 1st Cavalry Division, the 43rd Division and Americal Division would land inside Ariake Bay at beaches labeled DeSoto, Dusenberg, Essex, Ford, and Franklin and attempt to capture Shibushi and the city of Kanoya and its airfield.

    On the western shore of Kyushu, at beaches Pontiac, Reo, Rolls Royce, Saxon, Star, Studebaker, Stutz, Winston and Zephyr, the V Amphibious Corps would land the 2nd, 3rd and 5th Marine Divisions, sending half of its force inland to Sendai and the other half to the port city of Kagoshima.

    On November 4, the Reserve Force, consisting of the 81st and 98th Infantry Divisions and the 11th Airborne Division, after feigning an attack of the island of Shikoku, would be landed -- if not needed elsewhere -- near Kaimondake, near the southernmost tip of Kagoshima Bay, at the beaches designated Locomobile, Lincoln, LaSalle, Hupmobile, Moon, Mercedes, Maxwell, Overland, Oldsmobile, Packard and Plymouth.

    Olympic was not just a plan for invasion, but for conquest and occupation as well. It was expected to take four months to achieve its objective, with the three fresh American divisions per month to be landed in support of that operation if needed.
    If all went well with Olympic, Coronet would be launched March 1, 1946. Coronet would be twice the size of Olympic, with as many as 28 divisions landing on Honshu.

    All along the coast east of Tokyo, the American 1st Army would land the 5th, 7th, 27th, 44th, 86th, and 96th Infantry Divisions along with the 4th and 6th Marine Divisions.

    At Sagami Bay, just south of Tokyo, the entire 8th and 10th Armies would strike north and east to clear the long western shore of Tokyo Bay and attempt to go as far as Yokohama. The assault troops landing south of Tokyo would be the 4th, 6th, 8th, 24th, 31st, 37th, 38th and 8th Infantry Divisions, along with the 13th and 20th Armored Divisions.

    Following the initial assault, eight more divisions - the 2nd, 28th, 35th, 91st, 95th, 97th and 104th Infantry Divisions and the 11th Airborne Division -- would be landed. If additional troops were needed, as expected, other divisions redeployed from Europe and undergoing training in the United States would be shipped to Japan in what was hoped to be the final push.
    Captured Japanese documents and post war interrogations of Japanese military leaders disclose that information concerning the number of Japanese planes available for the defense of the home islands was dangerously in error.

    During the sea battle at Okinawa alone, Japanese kamakaze aircraft sank 32 Allied ships and damaged more than 400 others. But during the summer of 1945, American top brass concluded that the Japanese had spent their air force since American bombers and fighters daily flew unmolested over Japan.

    What the military leaders did not know was that by the end of July the Japanese had been saving all aircraft, fuel, and pilots in reserve, and had been feverishly building new planes for the decisive battle for their homeland.

    As part of Ketsu-Go, the name for the plan to defend Japan -- the Japanese were building 20 suicide takeoff strips in southern Kyushu with underground hangars. They also had 35 camouflaged airfields and nine seaplane bases.


    On the night before the expected invasion, 50 Japanese seaplane bombers, 100 former carrier aircraft and 50 land based army planes were to be launched in a suicide attack on the fleet.

    The Japanese had 58 more airfields in Korea, western Honshu and Shikoku, which also were to be used for massive suicide attacks.

    Allied intelligence had established that the Japanese had no more than 2,500 aircraft of which they guessed 300 would be deployed in suicide attacks.

    In August 1945, however, unknown to Allied intelligence, the Japanese still had 5,651 army and 7,074 navy aircraft, for a total of 12,725 planes of all types. Every village had some type of aircraft manufacturing activity. Hidden in mines, railway tunnels, under viaducts and in basements of department stores, work was being done to construct new planes.

    Additionally, the Japanese were building newer and more effective models of the Okka, a rocket-propelled bomb much like the German V-1, but flown by a suicide pilot.

    When the invasion became imminent, Ketsu-Go called for a fourfold aerial plan of attack to destroy up to 800 Allied ships.


    While Allied ships were approaching Japan, but still in the open seas, an initial force of 2,000 army and navy fighters were to fight to the death to control the skies over kyushu. A second force of 330 navy combat pilots were to attack the main body of the task force to keep it from using its fire support and air cover to protect the troop carrying transports. While these two forces were engaged, a third force of 825 suicide planes was to hit the American transports.

    As the invasion convoys approached their anchorages, another 2,000 suicide planes were to be launched in waves of 200 to 300, to be used in hour by hour attacks.

    By mid-morning of the first day of the invasion, most of the American land-based aircraft would be forced to return to their bases, leaving the defense against the suicide planes to the carrier pilots and the shipboard gunners.

    Carrier pilots crippled by fatigue would have to land time and time again to rearm and refuel. Guns would malfunction from the heat of continuous firing and ammunition would become scarce. Gun crews would be exhausted by nightfall, but still the waves of kamikaze would continue. With the fleet hovering off the beaches, all remaining Japanese aircraft would be committed to nonstop suicide attacks, which the Japanese hoped could be sustained for 10 days. The Japanese planned to coordinate their air strikes with attacks from the 40 remaining submarines from the Imperial Navy -- some armed with Long Lance torpedoes with a range of 20 miles -- when the invasion fleet was 180 miles off Kyushu.

    The Imperial Navy had 23 destroyers and two cruisers which were operational. These ships were to be used to counterattack the American invasion. A number of the destroyers were to be beached at the last minute to be used as anti-invasion gun platforms.

    Once offshore, the invasion fleet would be forced to defend not only against the attacks from the air, but would also be confronted with suicide attacks from sea. Japan had established a suicide naval attack unit of midget submarines, human torpedoes and exploding motorboats.

    The goal of the Japanese was to shatter the invasion before the landing. The Japanese were convinced the Americans would back off or become so demoralized that they would then accept a less-than-unconditional surrender and a more honorable and face-saving end for the Japanese.
    But as horrible as the battle of Japan would be off the beaches, it would be on Japanese soil that the American forces would face the most rugged and fanatical defense encountered during the war.

    Throughout the island-hopping Pacific campaign, Allied troops had always out numbered the Japanese by 2 to 1 and sometimes 3 to 1. In Japan it would be different. By virtue of a combination of cunning, guesswork, and brilliant military reasoning, a number of Japan's top military leaders were able to deduce, not only when, but where, the United States would land its first invasion forces.

    Facing the 14 American divisions landing at Kyushu would be 14 Japanese divisions, 7 independent mixed brigades, 3 tank brigades and thousands of naval troops. On Kyushu the odds would be 3 to 2 in favor of the Japanese, with 790,000 enemy defenders against 550,000 Americans. This time the bulk of the Japanese defenders would not be the poorly trained and ill-equipped labor battalions that the Americans had faced in the earlier campaigns.

    The Japanese defenders would be the hard core of the home army. These troops were well-fed and well equipped. They were familiar with the terrain, had stockpiles of arms and ammunition, and had developed an effective system of transportation and supply almost invisible from the air. Many of these Japanese troops were the elite of the army, and they were swollen with a fanatical fighting spirit.


    Japan's network of beach defenses consisted of offshore mines, thousands of suicide scuba divers attacking landing craft, and mines planted on the beaches. Coming ashore, the American Eastern amphibious assault forces at Miyazaki would face three Japanese divisions, and two others poised for counterattack. Awaiting the Southeastern attack force at Ariake Bay was an entire division and at least one mixed infantry brigade.

    On the western shores of Kyushu, the Marines would face the most brutal opposition. Along the invasion beaches would be the three Japanese divisions , a tank brigade, a mixed infantry brigade and an artillery command. Components of two divisions would also be poised to launch counterattacks.

    If not needed to reinforce the primary landing beaches, the American Reserve Force would be landed at the base of Kagoshima Bay November 4, where they would be confronted by two mixed infantry brigades, parts of two infantry divisions and thousands of naval troops.

    All along the invasion beaches, American troops would face coastal batteries, anti-landing obstacles and a network of heavily fortified pillboxes, bunkers, and underground fortresses. As Americans waded ashore, they would face intense artillery and mortar fire as they worked their way through concrete rubble and barbed-wire entanglements arranged to funnel them into the muzzles of these Japanese guns.

    On the beaches and beyond would be hundreds of Japanese machine gun positions, beach mines, booby traps, trip-wire mines and sniper units. Suicide units concealed in "spider holes" would engage the troops as they passed nearby. In the heat of battle, Japanese infiltration units would be sent to reap havoc in the American lines by cutting phone and communication lines. Some of the Japanese troops would be in American uniform, English-speaking Japanese officers were assigned to break in on American radio traffic to call off artillery fire, to order retreats and to further confuse troops. Other infiltration with demolition charges strapped on their chests or backs wold attempt to blow up american tanks, artillery pieces and ammunition stores as they were unloaded ashore.

    Beyond the beaches were large artillery pieces situated to bring down a curtain of fire on the beach. Some of these large guns were mounted on railroad tracks running in and out of caves protected by concrete and steel.

    The battle for Japan would be won by what Simon Bolivar Buckner, a lieutenant general in the Confederate army during the Civil War, had called "Prairie Dog Warfare." This type of fighting was almost unknown to the ground troops in Europe and the Mediterranean. It was peculiar only to the soldiers and Marines who fought the Japanese on islands all over the Pacific -- at Tarawa, Saipan, Iwo Jima and Okinawa.

    Prairie Dog Warfare was a battle for yards, feet and sometimes inches. It was brutal, deadly and dangerous form of combat aimed at an underground, heavily fortified, non-retreating enemy.

    In the mountains behind the Japanese beaches were underground networks of caves, bunkers, command posts and hospitals connected by miles of tunnels with dozens of entrances and exits. Some of these complexes could hold up to 1,000 troops.

    In addition to the use of poison gas and bacteriological warfare (which the Japanese had experimented with), Japan mobilized its citizenry.

    Had Olympic come about, the Japanese civilian population, inflamed by a national slogan - "One Hundred Million Will Die for the Emperor and Nation" - were prepared to fight to the death. Twenty Eight Million Japanese had become a part of the National Volunteer Combat Force. They were armed with ancient rifles, lunge mines, satchel charges, Molotov cocktails and one-shot black powder mortars. Others were armed with swords, long bows, axes and bamboo spears. The civilian units were to be used in nighttime attacks, hit and run maneuvers, delaying actions and massive suicide charges at the weaker American positions.

    At the early stage of the invasion, 1,000 Japanese and American soldiers would be dying every hour.
    Usually omitted from the statistics, however, because the atomic bomb was a secret, is the 300,000 white slave laborers held by Japan. Most of these were to be executed if the invasion had happened. The appearance of the atomic bomb brought such a sudden end to the war, that these lives were saved, along with the expected military casualties of both sides and massive numbers of Japanese civilian population either participating in the defense or as collateral damage.
    The invasion of Japan never became a reality because on August 6, 1945, an atomic bomb was exploded over Hiroshima. Three days later, a second bomb was dropped on Nagasaki. Within days the war with Japan was at a close.

    Had these bombs not been dropped and had the invasion been launched as scheduled, combat casualties in Japan would have been at a minimum of the tens of thousands. Every foot of Japanese soil would have been paid for by Japanese and American lives.

    One can only guess at how many civilians would have committed suicide in their homes or in futile mass military attacks.

    In retrospect, the 1 million American men who were to be the casualties of the invasion, were instead lucky enough to survive the war.

    Intelligence studies and military estimates made 50 years ago, and not latter-day speculation, clearly indicate that the battle for Japan might well have resulted in the biggest blood-bath in the history of modern warfare.

    Far worse would be what might have happened to Japan as a nation and as a culture. When the invasion came, it would have come after several months of fire bombing all of the remaining Japanese cities. The cost in human life that resulted from the two atomic blasts would be small in comparison to the total number of Japanese lives that would have been lost by this aerial devastation.

    With American forces locked in combat in the south of Japan, little could have prevented the Soviet Union from marching into the northern half of the Japanese home islands. Japan today cold be divided much like Korea and Germany.


    The world was spared the cost of Operation Downfall, however, because Japan formally surrendered to the United Nations September 2, 1945, and World War II was over.

    The aircraft carriers, cruisers and transport ships scheduled to carry the invasion troops to Japan, ferried home American troops in a gigantic operation called Magic Carpet.

    In the fall of 1945, in the aftermath of the war, few people concerned themselves with the invasion plans. Following the surrender, the classified documents, maps, diagrams and appendices for Operation Downfall were packed away in boxes and eventually stored at the National Archives. These plans that called for the invasion of Japan paint a vivid description of what might have been one of the most horrible campaigns in the history of man. The fact that the story of the invasion of Japan is locked up in the National Archives and is not told in our history books is something for which all Americans can be thankful.

    Some days I honestly wonder if enough people are aware of the story for why the US Military hasn't had to make new molds of the Purple Heart medal in more than 60 years....


    Suffice to say.....there really is no argument to be made for why the dropping of the Atomic Bombs on Japan weren't entirely justified.
    Last edited by Caelius; August 13, 2011 at 02:04 AM.

  17. #97
    Vanoi's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Civitate

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    17,268

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Caelius View Post
    *sighs*

    Time for some posters here to face the hard truth regarding Operation Downfall.

    Compared to the alternative (full scale invasion via Operation Downfall) Japan very likely wouldn't exist as the country it does today.


    Some days I honestly wonder if enough people are aware of the story for why the US Military hasn't had to make new molds of the Purple Heart Award medal in more than 60 years....


    Suffice to say.....there really is no argument to be made for why the dropping of the Atomic Bombs on Japan weren't entirely justified.
    Really nice post man. But Halbard has stated already that we are discussing if the atomic bombings of Japan itself was a legal act or not. The fact that it prevented an invasion and saved lives is irrevlevant to Halbard.
    Best/Worst quotes of TWC

    Quote Originally Posted by Kyriakos View Post
    While you are at it, allow Germany to rearm, it's not like they committed the worst atrocity in modern history, so having a strong army can't lead to anything pitiful.

  18. #98
    Protector Domesticus
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    4,045

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

    I couldn't care less. Halberd is a layman at best when it comes to understanding the legality of the A-bomb use on Japan.

    Both cities were home to an immense collection of key industrial and military assets.

    Hiroshima alone had it's population nearly doubled with the presence of Field Marshal Shunroku Hata's entire Japanese 2nd General Army. The Army Group command based there was responsible for the defense of basically all of southern Japan, and directly controlled the XVI Area Army (14 divisions in Korea and Kyushu), XV Area Army (8 divisions in western Honshu and Shikoku), and V Area Army (5 divisions on Hokkaido at the other end of Japan).

    Likewise even though Nagasaki wasn't intended to be the primary target for Bockscar (the city of Kokura was saved by low clouds that day), it was still a major sea port and shipbuilding hub that was home to the Mitsubishi Steel and Arms Works. Of which the aftermath of the bombing left 70% of Nagasaki's industrial area completely destroyed.

    The bombings were entirely justified, and in retrospect were even tame when compared to even some of the conventional bombing raids that took place in both theaters of WWII. People should look up Operation Thunderclap for instance, and then argue if the deaths caused by such an operation if it had occurred would have been "legal" or not.

    The fact of the matter is that WWII was a total war. Any of the stipulations of the Hague convention were practically null and void during that period.
    Last edited by Caelius; August 13, 2011 at 02:05 AM.

  19. #99
    Halbard's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Lisboa
    Posts
    1,652

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Caelius View Post
    I couldn't care less. Halberd is a layman at best when it comes to understanding the legality of the A-bomb use on Japan.

    Both cities were home to an immense collection of key industrial and military assets.

    Hiroshima alone had it's population nearly doubled with the presence of Field Marshal Shunroku Hata's entire Japanese 2nd General Army. The Army Group command based there was responsible for the defense of basically all of southern Japan, and directly controlled the XVI Area Army (14 divisions in Korea and Kyushu), XV Area Army (8 divisions in western Honshu and Shikoku), and V Area Army (5 divisions on Hokkaido at the other end of Japan).

    Likewise even though Nagasaki wasn't intended to be the primary target for Bockscar (the city of Kokura was saved by low clouds that day), it was still a major sea port and shipbuilding hub that was home to the Mitsubishi Steel and Arms Works. Of which the aftermath of the bombing left 70% of Nagasaki's industrial area completely destroyed.

    The bombings were entirely justified, and in retrospect were even tame when compared to even some of the conventional bombing raids that took place in both theaters of WWII. People should look up Operation Thunderclap for instance, and then argue if the deaths caused by such an operation if it had occurred would have been "legal" or not.

    The fact of the matter is that WWII was a total war. Any of the stipulations of the Hague convention were practically null and void during that period.


    So if the Germans had an A-Bomb, and dropped it over, say Chicago or New Jersey, and still lost the war, wouldn't the german leaders be convicted of war crimes?

    And about me being a layman on International Law: I study Law. I've had a few reads on many treaties of the time, and im convinced that, by the time the A-Bombs were dropped, it constituted a violation of international law.

    Even if you dont consider the treaties (i reckon that most were valid), there is international custom.

    And By the way, a rule cannot BECOME null! The NULLITY is an original characteristic of the rule. it CANNOT be null a posteriori.

    And whatever you say, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were mainly civilian targets. Targeting civilians is a war crime.
    Last edited by Halbard; August 13, 2011 at 07:05 AM.
    What makes a real American? A cowboy hat? Enjoying a fine T-bone
    steak? Going to a baseball game? Shooting a gun? Maybe it’s the freedom to go
    into a poor country and tell them how to do things?! Heh! Those are all great
    qualities! But one thing that makes a true patriot is the ability to choose
    an American car! When you buy an import you take a hot meal off a hard
    working American’s table. There, there! This poor girl is going
    to starve to death, just because you bought a cheaper, more efficient
    Maibazu. Without gross symbols of excess, what will Americans have to look up
    to? Our great industries is a threaten! Cars, pornography, armaments! And
    they need your help! So the next time you buy a car, a piece of adult
    literature or a missile defense system! Make sure you do the American thing!

  20. #100

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Halbard View Post
    So if the Germans had an A-Bomb, and dropped it over, say Chicago or New Jersey, and still lost the war, wouldn't the german leaders be convicted of war crimes?

    And about me being a layman on International Law: I study Law. I've had a few reads on many treaties of the time, and im convinced that, by the time the A-Bombs were dropped, it constituted a violation of international law.

    Even if you dont consider the treaties (i reckon that most were valid), there is international custom.

    And By the way, a rule cannot BECOME null! The NULLITY is an original characteristic of the rule. it CANNOT be null a posteriori.

    And whatever you say, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were mainly civilian targets. Targeting civilians is a war crime.
    So why are you so focused on the atomic bombings when the incendiary bombies we performed were much worse? I mean, even in your own words Hiroshima and Nagasaki were mainly civilian targets, meaning you accept that they did have other intentions. The whole point of incendiaries was because we knew how easy it was going to be to light the whole city on fire. Why else would they experiment with making incendiary bat bombs? The fact that you are so focused on the atomic bombs when in reality they were only a dent in the armor compared to other Japanese civilian targets shows your argument is completely misguided and that this is all part of some mere agenda you have.

    And having a conversation about dropping the atomic bombs without including the intentions of why the US was doing so is just ridiculous. The intention was to end the horrible war that was going on, and that's exactly what they did. Rules...pffffft, the Japanese weren't playing with rules. As someone already said, this was "total war". That means kill or be killed. If someone is trying to kill you do you go over all the different self defense laws in your head or do you simply try to stop your killer.

    And as for your "Nazis" dropping an atomic bomb on Chicago. No need for your little "What if?" How many were charged specifically for the bombings they committed on London? There's where the answer to your question lies, and i'm fairly certain you'll find the answer to be "zero". And even in your scenario, yes they probably would be cahrged because the German's were the agressors.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •