War crimes WWII?
IrishWizard
Active member
Also I would like to add a fact. When Truman decided to drop the bomb on Hiroshima he had hundreds of planes fly over Hiroshima and drop thousands upon thousands of slips telling them that they need to leave because destruction is coming. They also did this at Nagasaki a day before it was to bombed. So saying the USA bombing those 2 citys as a war crime in a way isn't. We gave them proper warning telling them to leave and they didn't.
Another thing, what was so frightening about the Japanese is that they would not surrender one man. They fought to the death and less than 5,000 soldiers surrendered out of teh entire war in the Pacific! When they knew they were beginning to lose they were training women and children to fire guns and carry live grenades to American troopers. They would of fought to the last Japanese because when it came down to conquering Japan thats what you had to do. Kill every last one of them.
So dropping the bomb on those 2 citys when you think about it took away military troops who would of been used against the U.S. because the Japanese were so desperate. Any comments?
Another thing, what was so frightening about the Japanese is that they would not surrender one man. They fought to the death and less than 5,000 soldiers surrendered out of teh entire war in the Pacific! When they knew they were beginning to lose they were training women and children to fire guns and carry live grenades to American troopers. They would of fought to the last Japanese because when it came down to conquering Japan thats what you had to do. Kill every last one of them.
So dropping the bomb on those 2 citys when you think about it took away military troops who would of been used against the U.S. because the Japanese were so desperate. Any comments?
Mark Conley
Active member
Marksman said:
Well it could be...if you used them on non-combatants, like civillians and such.
Perfectly legal to use on combatants though...because they are combatants.
I wouldnt like one to be dropped on me, combatant or non-combatant.
Doppleganger
Active member
IrishWizard said:
I believe that American casualty estimates for an land invasion of Japan were conservatively put at one million men on the US side alone.
IMO without use of nuclear weapons Japan never would have been fully under control. 70% of that country is hilly or mountaineous and pockets of Japanese resistance would have been able to hide for years. Man for man Japanese troops were probably the toughest in the world with martial arts such as Ju Jitsu part of their basic training.
Here is an interesting link:
http://www.waszak.com/japanww2.htm
So droping those 2 atomic weapons on Japan saved a WHOLE lot of grief for both sides.
IrishWizard
Active member
Yeah man I forgot to say that. It was said that we would of needed at least 5 million men in THE FIRST WAVE just to take the beaches of the home island of Japan. And as he said, there was an estimated loss of 1 million people with in the first 48 hours. Those 2 bombs saved alot of American lives.
FutureRANGER
Active member
At 2000 hours tonight (Pacific Standard Time) on the History Channel there is a show celled "Hiroshima: Decision to Drop the Bomb". It is about exactly what we were discussing.
. So stop. Next off-topic will be deleted.
Mark Conley
Active member
I believe that one of the constant threads in this post is the question "what is a war crime"? Since the Geneva accords weren’t developed until the 1949, the charter that empowered the winning allied nations to try the Germans, Italians, and Japanese at outset of peace established the definition.
The full charter and trial can be researched here:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/nuremberg/nuremberg.htm
The charter for the Nuremberg trials defined the following items as legal reasons to try the leadership for war related acts:
(a) Crimes against Peace: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a Common Plan or Conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing;
(b) War Crimes: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity;
(c) Crimes against Humanity: namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war,or persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of domestic law of the country where perpetrated.
When it came to the destruction of London by the Germans, it fell under the clause of wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.
When it came to the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, well, unfortunately the cities industrial and economic complexes were too interwoven into the city population to effectively separate them from the military necessity clause. There were actually six target cities selected by the presidential council composed of civilian and military leaders: each bombing mission had one primary and at least two secondary targets picked, in case bombing could not occur at the primary site. In the case of Nagasaki, it was actually Kobe that was the primary that day. Extensive cloud cover kept it from being bombed. Nagasaki had an immense allied POW camp, and technically shouldn’t have been considered for the primary target. If the bomb hadn’t gone off target and landed on the opposite side of the hills where it detonated, they would have had 1500 allied troops less to get back from Japan that year.
The really sad thing was that with the constant bombing of the Japanese cities with conventional explosives and incinderarys , most of the Japanese cities were burned out shells anyway. Even with this tactic, the will of the Japanese to fight had not been broken, and the suicide tactics shown at Iwo Jima and Okinawa indicated that the main assault on the mainland would be much, much worse for the allies.
A sad decision? yes. A war crime? In my opinion, no.
The full charter and trial can be researched here:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/nuremberg/nuremberg.htm
The charter for the Nuremberg trials defined the following items as legal reasons to try the leadership for war related acts:
(a) Crimes against Peace: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a Common Plan or Conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing;
(b) War Crimes: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity;
(c) Crimes against Humanity: namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war,or persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of domestic law of the country where perpetrated.
When it came to the destruction of London by the Germans, it fell under the clause of wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.
When it came to the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, well, unfortunately the cities industrial and economic complexes were too interwoven into the city population to effectively separate them from the military necessity clause. There were actually six target cities selected by the presidential council composed of civilian and military leaders: each bombing mission had one primary and at least two secondary targets picked, in case bombing could not occur at the primary site. In the case of Nagasaki, it was actually Kobe that was the primary that day. Extensive cloud cover kept it from being bombed. Nagasaki had an immense allied POW camp, and technically shouldn’t have been considered for the primary target. If the bomb hadn’t gone off target and landed on the opposite side of the hills where it detonated, they would have had 1500 allied troops less to get back from Japan that year.
The really sad thing was that with the constant bombing of the Japanese cities with conventional explosives and incinderarys , most of the Japanese cities were burned out shells anyway. Even with this tactic, the will of the Japanese to fight had not been broken, and the suicide tactics shown at Iwo Jima and Okinawa indicated that the main assault on the mainland would be much, much worse for the allies.
A sad decision? yes. A war crime? In my opinion, no.
bush musketeer
Active member
yeah but
technically the bombings would of been war crimes because they were aimed at civillians, but they would of been allowed because of the hague convention of 1910.
"This allowed for armys to retaliate in a like way if the opposing army did things like killing off the population, shooting prisoners and the like.
So if germany started the bombing of civillians in cities then that would of meant the the oposing forces could retaliate in a like way.
(was really a way of making it leagal to fight dirty if the other side did it first)"
this was taken from a disscussion on SBS tv on the 8th of june 2004. The topic being discussed was to do with what was has been happening over in iraq in the military prison, Abuilgra.
as for the other question i think that once a country is in a war everyone is a target.
technically the bombings would of been war crimes because they were aimed at civillians, but they would of been allowed because of the hague convention of 1910.
"This allowed for armys to retaliate in a like way if the opposing army did things like killing off the population, shooting prisoners and the like.
So if germany started the bombing of civillians in cities then that would of meant the the oposing forces could retaliate in a like way.
(was really a way of making it leagal to fight dirty if the other side did it first)"
this was taken from a disscussion on SBS tv on the 8th of june 2004. The topic being discussed was to do with what was has been happening over in iraq in the military prison, Abuilgra.
as for the other question i think that once a country is in a war everyone is a target.
Hm
The bombing of German cities were not war crimes. This issue has cropped up because apologists on both sides have sought to claim that each side in WW2 committed crimes.
Lets gets some issues straight: The Nazis practised genocide - the deliberate, intentional, pre-planned slaughter of entire races and religions.
When the allies attacked German cities, they were merely targeting valid military targets. These cities consisted of factories, war installations, economic institutions and rail junctions. The Nazis deliberately moved in extra workers to support the war effort.
Let us not judge the bombing campaigns of the forties with the ethical, PGM minded attitudes of the current era
The bombing of German cities were not war crimes. This issue has cropped up because apologists on both sides have sought to claim that each side in WW2 committed crimes.
Lets gets some issues straight: The Nazis practised genocide - the deliberate, intentional, pre-planned slaughter of entire races and religions.
When the allies attacked German cities, they were merely targeting valid military targets. These cities consisted of factories, war installations, economic institutions and rail junctions. The Nazis deliberately moved in extra workers to support the war effort.
Let us not judge the bombing campaigns of the forties with the ethical, PGM minded attitudes of the current era
godofthunder9010
Active member
Re: Hm
You do not appear to know true history. Just the cleaned up version. Dresden was 100% intentional with no military target to speak of. Hamburg was also more or less intentional, and the firebombing was set off nowhere near "military targets".spymaster said:
Hm
A little disappointing that you chose to use the "do not appear to know true history" argument. You always know when someone is losing an argument when they resort to casting vulgar doubts on ones knowledge rather than arguing a case with reason and examples.
Note that I disagreed with you previously but didnt stoop to claiming you know nothing etc etc.
The bombing of German cities, Dresden, Hamburg may seem unpalatable by todays modern ethics but this was an era of total war, where the German state was geared to supporting the German machine. German morale had been identified as a centre of gravity and German cities were targeted in an attempt to undermine morale (not too successful though) as well as engaging German military, economic, and industrial facilites.
Dresden was an integral part of the Nazi military-industrial complex, and the fourth largest centre of armaments manufacture in Nazi Germany. Dresden was also an important centre of communication and lay across the Red Army's line of advance. The city was in all respects a legitimate target. Hamburg was an another important industrial centre.
As far as I am aware, the fire-storm was not originally expected. It was a by-product of the bombing that occured. Yes, the bombing was not accurate but accurate precision bombing had not been totally developed (the Dambusters was an exception rather than the rule).
A little disappointing that you chose to use the "do not appear to know true history" argument. You always know when someone is losing an argument when they resort to casting vulgar doubts on ones knowledge rather than arguing a case with reason and examples.
Note that I disagreed with you previously but didnt stoop to claiming you know nothing etc etc.
The bombing of German cities, Dresden, Hamburg may seem unpalatable by todays modern ethics but this was an era of total war, where the German state was geared to supporting the German machine. German morale had been identified as a centre of gravity and German cities were targeted in an attempt to undermine morale (not too successful though) as well as engaging German military, economic, and industrial facilites.
Dresden was an integral part of the Nazi military-industrial complex, and the fourth largest centre of armaments manufacture in Nazi Germany. Dresden was also an important centre of communication and lay across the Red Army's line of advance. The city was in all respects a legitimate target. Hamburg was an another important industrial centre.
As far as I am aware, the fire-storm was not originally expected. It was a by-product of the bombing that occured. Yes, the bombing was not accurate but accurate precision bombing had not been totally developed (the Dambusters was an exception rather than the rule).
godofthunder9010
Active member
Well, when you said this,
Here's a link discussing the Allied Bombing Campaign in general:
http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=61013
Here's some more info on intentional firebombing, and intentional targeting of non-military, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II#Was_the_Dresden_bombing_justified.3F
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWdresden.htm
Arthur Harris was an unwavering advocate of targetting civilians throughout the war, but drastically edited the whole thing after the war, making it fit for reading without making him look like a monster. He is foremost of Allied commanders that probably ought to have been tried as war criminals (in conjunction with the bombing of Germany). His writings are an excellent example of the "cleaned up" version of the war.
Obviously the US and UK did not come anywhere close to equalling Japan, Germany and the Soviet Union in war crimes during World War II, but we ought to be willing to admit to those that did happen.
it gave me the impression that you had no idea what you were talking about. The US and UK intentially terror-bombed Germany throughout the war. There were LOTS of intentional targets that were not "valid military targets". At Dresden, the RAF and US intentionally lit the air on fire. It was their intention to kill civilians en mass. It couldn't have been more deliberate. What they had figured out from Hamburg was that you could ignite a massive fire with careful PLANNING and PREPARATION. It required, among other things, the dropping of copius amounts of unlit petrolium jelly to prep the target for ingniting. Then you follow with incendiary bombs to light the whole thing off. The result was a giant pillar of fire that literally sucked people into it, kicking and screaming. Some totals for the deaths at Dresden put the total number of dead well above Nagasaki.
Here's a link discussing the Allied Bombing Campaign in general:
http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=61013
Here's some more info on intentional firebombing, and intentional targeting of non-military, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II#Was_the_Dresden_bombing_justified.3F
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWdresden.htm
Arthur Harris was an unwavering advocate of targetting civilians throughout the war, but drastically edited the whole thing after the war, making it fit for reading without making him look like a monster. He is foremost of Allied commanders that probably ought to have been tried as war criminals (in conjunction with the bombing of Germany). His writings are an excellent example of the "cleaned up" version of the war.
Obviously the US and UK did not come anywhere close to equalling Japan, Germany and the Soviet Union in war crimes during World War II, but we ought to be willing to admit to those that did happen.
"it gave me the impression that you had no idea what you were talking about"
Sigh, you have used the "I know more than you" argument before and it still doesnt convince.
Harris wasn't a war criminal and not only is it crass to suggest so but it is also insulting to my nation. Every German city was a valid military target, every German civilian who worked in a industrial capacity in support of the war effort was a valid target. You cant have it both ways in total warfare. You cant claim to be a civilian non-combatant and then go to work in a facility that supports the war effort. The Germans went to considerable length.
You may not like it, society today may not like it, but the rules of war permitted the bombing of the German cities. The use of the phrase "terror-bombing" is an emotive and biased-laden phrase. The German war machine had to be bombed to force Germany to her knees. It may not have been entirely effective with the glorious benefit of hindsight but it was entirely right that we did so. The will of the nation is a centre of gravity and we applied the correct strategic lever against it.
You can insult me all day long and post links to tenuous articles on the net but I can equally post references (Middlebrook, The Battle of Hamburg, Cassel 2000) but I wont resort to "I am cleverer than you" tactics
Sigh, you have used the "I know more than you" argument before and it still doesnt convince.
Harris wasn't a war criminal and not only is it crass to suggest so but it is also insulting to my nation. Every German city was a valid military target, every German civilian who worked in a industrial capacity in support of the war effort was a valid target. You cant have it both ways in total warfare. You cant claim to be a civilian non-combatant and then go to work in a facility that supports the war effort. The Germans went to considerable length.
You may not like it, society today may not like it, but the rules of war permitted the bombing of the German cities. The use of the phrase "terror-bombing" is an emotive and biased-laden phrase. The German war machine had to be bombed to force Germany to her knees. It may not have been entirely effective with the glorious benefit of hindsight but it was entirely right that we did so. The will of the nation is a centre of gravity and we applied the correct strategic lever against it.
You can insult me all day long and post links to tenuous articles on the net but I can equally post references (Middlebrook, The Battle of Hamburg, Cassel 2000) but I wont resort to "I am cleverer than you" tactics
godofthunder9010
Active member
If the statement can be made - "Civilians are legitimate targets no matter who they are." then I guess I'm not sure what a war crime is. I've always been under the impression that deliberate targetting of civilians is a war crime.
Please drop the "oh I'm a victim of your overinflated ego, you think you're so much smarter" crap, it makes discussing anything just plain irritating.
I'm willing to go with another word for the RAF and USAAC deliberately setting cities on fire with the intent to destroy houses and kill civilians. You don't like the word "terrorbombing". You pick the alternative then.
Please drop the "oh I'm a victim of your overinflated ego, you think you're so much smarter" crap, it makes discussing anything just plain irritating.
I'm willing to go with another word for the RAF and USAAC deliberately setting cities on fire with the intent to destroy houses and kill civilians. You don't like the word "terrorbombing". You pick the alternative then.
doddsy2978
Active member
It is important to realise that the bombing of conurbations in WWII came from a mis-understanding. Hitler had banned his bomber crews from threatening London or any other city for that matter. Unfortunately, one or two German Bombers were lost one night and decided to jettison their bombs and go home - they were over London. Our government were horrified at this and Harris was ordered to retaliate. Berlin was on the target list the following night. Hilter - was equally horrified at this audacity and put London on the target list and the rest, as they say, is history.
I don't think that these are the acts of criminals - both sides accepted that the morale of the enemy were a legitimate target.
As an aside...
The Dam raid, has since been deemed illegal and according to the Geneva Convention - 'no structure that contains a large natural force may be attacked' (paraphrase). For this, read dams and nuclear powerplants etc.
I don't think that these are the acts of criminals - both sides accepted that the morale of the enemy were a legitimate target.
As an aside...
The Dam raid, has since been deemed illegal and according to the Geneva Convention - 'no structure that contains a large natural force may be attacked' (paraphrase). For this, read dams and nuclear powerplants etc.
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
Hate to sound like a traitor but yeah it is often true.
Not anymore it seems but definately so back then.
The strategic bombings did kill enough civilians for them to be classified as war crimes to today's standards. Dunno about then. The convicting of Nazis for "war crimes" on bombing London was definately double standard... though I am not 100% sure if anyone was charged on that account.
Personally I don't really believe in a lot of this "war crimes" nonsense. The only one I believe is a true war crime is genocide of civilians. When the war ends, you lock up and hang the losers. Losing is the ultimate war crime really.
Not anymore it seems but definately so back then.
The strategic bombings did kill enough civilians for them to be classified as war crimes to today's standards. Dunno about then. The convicting of Nazis for "war crimes" on bombing London was definately double standard... though I am not 100% sure if anyone was charged on that account.
Personally I don't really believe in a lot of this "war crimes" nonsense. The only one I believe is a true war crime is genocide of civilians. When the war ends, you lock up and hang the losers. Losing is the ultimate war crime really.
1217 said: