Was it a war crime when US nuked Hiroshima & Nagasaki?

The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki qualified as war crimes under the Hague convention (in force at the time) as they involved wilful killing of civilians, wanton destruction of cities,

and use of poisonous weapons (due to the effects of the radiation).

Just as in other wars too little effort was put into diplomacy. Japan was ready to capitulate as soon as it became clear that no army would be coming to the rescue from Korea. The only obstacle to unconditional capitulation was the position of the emperor (which was not changed even after the bombs were dropped!). Therefore one could argue that the atomic bombings were totally unnecessary and did not achieve one iota more than what could have been achieved through negotiation and a little more cross-cultural awareness (if we limit ourselves to the capitulation of Japan, making an impression on the soviets is another matter).

Information about Japanese overtures for peace can be found among others at http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2002/reviews/2943hiroshima.html

One might expect the military people to be in favour of dropping the bomb on Japan but this is what Eisenhower writes in his autobiography

Quote:

I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act.... The Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent. During the recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression, and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment, I thought no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face.'

General MacArthur, until his death, insisted that bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki had

Quote:

no military value whatsoever.

After the war the Strategic Bombing Survey (1946) examined the destruction caused in Japan by a combination of the blockade and the incessant conventional bombing and concluded that

Quote:

Japan would likely have surrendered in 1945 without atomic bombing, a Soviet declaration of war, or an American invasion.

From Henry Stimson's diary

Quote:

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 would not have a fair background to show its strength.

And so began the cover up and the mythology

Quote:

At the time Stimson was working on his memoirs, being assisted by Harvey Bundy's son, McGeorge Bundy. The two now readily undertook the task of providing the "cover-up" for the atom bomb decision.

Harvey Bundy himself had drafted a number of "pointers" that he felt should be included : namely, that the bomb decision was primarily ordered with the thought that it would save American lives; that no major person in authority thought that Japan would surrender on terms acceptable to the Allies; that the Interim Committee had rejected targets "where the destruction of life and property would be the very greatest"; that the committee had discussed "intensively" whether the bomb should be used at all; and that the committee had also considered the possibility of a demonstration prior to its use in war. In particular he wanted to downplay any inference that the bomb played any role in U.S. relations with the Soviet Union.

Oralloy, welcome to the forum! It's a real pleasure to read your posts and to hear a voice of logic, reason and good information.

Thanks for the links Paasky

there is nothing to contradict my contention that the bombing was

a demonstration to the Russians and the world
an experiment using two different types of bomb

2. Delay the end of the war against Japan to enable the use of illegal weapons of mass destruction "to end the war on Japan".

OTHER OPTIONS.
This seems like the quick and easy way out of the war against Japan. There were so many other options instead of dropping the atomic bomb. One is that America could have naval blockaded major import sites for Japan and they would give up just as easy.

Many people believed that Hiroshima and Nagasaki beared little of no military importance whatsoever, and that firebombing on the cities or known military bases would have done exactly the same job.

Even if America had decided to drop the atomic bomb, they should have done it over Tokyo harbor, this would have convinced Japan's leaders to quit without killing many people.

The two cities were of limited military value.

Civilians outnumbered troops in Hiroshima five or six to one. This means Japanese lives were sacrificed simply for power politics between the U.S. and the Soviet Union.

Japan was ready to call it quits anyway.

More than 60 of its cities had been destroyed by conventional bombing, the home islands were being blockaded by the American Navy, and the Soviet Union entered the war by attacking Japanese troops in Manchuria.

After the atomic bomb was dropped many people sustained immoral injuries like 90% burns and radiation sickness.

American refusal to modify its "unconditional surrender" demand to allow the Japanese to keep their emperor needlessly prolonged Japan's resistance.

The bomb was used partly to justify the $2 billion spent on its development.

TRUMAN WAR CRIMINAL?
Laws and Customs of War on Land made in the Hague on July 29, 1899 clearly states in article XXIII that it is especially prohibited to kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army .

Japan had tried to surrender months earlier, and the US knew that,

Pres. Truman should have been tried on charges of War crimes as humanity

Timber wrote

Quote:

The Japanese Ruling Military Clique was not in the least interested in the bargaining table. By the codes of Bushido and Samurai, they were fully prepared and fully expecting to die in glorious, noble battle. Surrender was simply not an option.

So why did they surrender?

Its on record that there were tentative gestures about surrender terms revolving around the status of the emperor post war. The Americans insisted on unconditional surrender and the war went on, until the atomic bomb was used, Japan surrendered, and the emperor was allowed to remain as a constitutional monarch.

There is no doubt in my mind that such terms could have been agreed before the use of the atom bomb.

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

Timber wrote

Quote:

The Japanese Ruling Military Clique was not in the least interested in the bargaining table. By the codes of Bushido and Samurai, they were fully prepared and fully expecting to die in glorious, noble battle. Surrender was simply not an option.

So why did they surrender?

Large scale violence against civilians usually works.

The Japanese leaders weren't idiots. If they had been offered a good deal they would have agreed to stop fighting.

So, as I see it, there were three options for the US: 1. End the war at the bargaining table and making the concessions necessary 2. Invade Japan, accepting more or less heavy american casulties 3. Drop the bombs.

There can be no reasonable doubt that there was a way of finding some kind of compromise between US and Japanese imperial interests at any time.

America wanted revenge on the Japs AND to show off their new tech to scare the Russians.... My opinion anyway

timberlandko,

The only thing THIS shows is that the US could have commited crimes even worse than the nuking.

However, there WAS the third possibility of offering the Japanese face-saving rather than unconditional surrender.

lodp wrote:

There can be no reasonable doubt that there was a way of finding some kind of compromise between US and Japanese imperial interests at any time.

Incorrect. We were not going to compromise. Japan was going to accept our terms no matter what the cost.

lodp wrote:

So, as I see it, there were three options for the US: 1. End the war at the bargaining table and making the concessions necessary 2. Invade Japan, accepting more or less heavy american casulties 3. Drop the bombs.

Option #1 was never going to happen.

lodp wrote:

However, there WAS the third possibility of offering the Japanese face-saving rather than unconditional surrender.

The supposed "face saving" involved many unacceptable terms that we were never going to accept.

(b)Proclamation Defining Terms for Japanese Surrender, July 26, 1945

(1) We-The President of the United States, the President of the National Government of the Republic of China, and the Prime Minister of Great Britain, representing the hundreds of millions of our countrymen, have conferred and agree that Japan shall be given an opportunity to end this war.

(2) The prodigious land, sea and air forces of the United States, the British Empire and of China, many times reinforced by their armies and air fleets from the west, are poised to strike the final blows upon Japan. This military power is sustained and inspired by the determination of all the Allied Nations to prosecute the war against Japan until she ceases to resist.

(3) The result of the futile and senseless German resistance to the might of the aroused free peoples of the world stands forth in awful clarity as an example to the people of Japan. The might that now converges on Japan is immeasurably greater than that which, when applied to the resisting Nazis, necessarily laid waste to the lands, the industry and the method of life of the whole German people. The full application of our military power, backed by our resolve, All mean the inevitable and complete destruction of the Japanese armed forces and just as inevitably the utter devastation of the Japanese homeland.

(4) The time has come for Japan to decide whether she will continue to be controlled by those self-willed militaristic advisers whose unintelligent calculations have brought the Empire of Japan to the threshold of annihilation, or whether she will follow the path of reason.

(5) Following are our terms. We will not deviate from them. There are no alternatives. We shall brook no delay.

(6) There must be eliminated for all time the authority and influence of those who have deceived and misled the people of Japan into embarking on world conquest, for we insist that a new order of peace security and justice will be impossible until irresponsible militarism is driven from the world.

(7) Until such a new order is established and until there is convincing proof that Japan's war-making power is destroyed, points in Japanese territory to be designated by the Allies shall be occupied to secure the achievement of the basic objectives we are here setting forth.

(8) The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine.

(9) The Japanese military forces, after being completely disarmed, shall be permitted to return to their homes with the opportunity to lead peaceful and productive lives.

(10) We do not intend that the Japanese shall be enslaved as a race or destroyed as a nation, but stern justice shall be meted out to all war criminals, including those who have visited cruelties upon our prisoners. The Japanese Government shall remove all obstacles to the revival and strengthening of democratic tendencies among the Japanese people. Freedom of speech, of religion, and of thought, as well as respect for the fundamental human rights shall be established.

(11) Japan shall be permitted to maintain such industries as will sustain her economy and permit the exaction of just reparations in kind, but not those [industries] which would enable her to re-arm for war. To this end, access to, as distinguished from control of, raw materials shall be permitted. Eventual Japanese participation in world trade relations shall be permitted.

(12) The occupying forces of the Allies shall be withdrawn from Japan as soon as these objectives have been accomplished and there has been established in accordance with the freely expressed will of the Japanese people a peacefully inclined and responsible government.

(13) We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces, and to provide proper and adequate assurances of their good faith in such action. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction.

Today In History
July 26, 1945
The "Potsdam Declaration," an agreement calling for the unconditional
surrender of Japan, was signed by leaders from the United States,
Great Britain, and China in Potsdam, Germany. Two days later, the
Japanese Prime Minister Admiral Kantaro Suzuki rejected the Potsdam
Declaration.

The declaration was part of the Potsdam Conference, the last of the
major meetings during World War II.

Pacific History
July 27
In 1945, Japanese Prime Minister Kantaro Suzuki rejected the Potsdam Declaration, saying "it has no important value." He called on Japanese to ignore the ultimatum and continue fighting.

[T]he final terms offered to the Japanese in the Potsdam declaration on 26 July made no mention of the Emperor or of the imperial system. Neither did the declaration contain any reference to the atom bomb but simply warned the Japanese of the consequences of continued resistance. Only those already familiar with the weapon could have read the references to inevitable and complete destruction as a warning of atomic warfare.

The receipt of the Potsdam Declaration in Japan led to frantic meetings to decide what should be done. It was finally decided that the government make some statement to the people, and on 28 July Premier Suzuki declared to the press that Japan would ignore the declaration, a statement that was interpreted by the Allies as a rejection.

To the Allies the rejection of the Potsdam Declaration confirmed the view that the military clique was still in control of Japan and that only a decisive act of violence could remove it. The instrument for such action lay at hand in the atomic bomb; events now seemed to justify its use. But in the hope that the Japanese might still change their minds, Truman held off orders on the use of the bomb for a few days. Only silence came from Tokyo (emphasis added by timber)

From: The Great Mistakes of the War; Baldwin, HR (Ed)
Harper & Bros, New York, New York, 1950

Yeah but if bombing innocent women and children is proving a point i'd opt for stalemate everytime.

I know the Japanese weren't blameless but come on! Would you do it now?

America did place an embargo on Japan and bled her dry prior to Pearl Harbor

so in their eyes they were defending themselves, rightly or wrongly.

The bombs shouldn't have been dropped! There is ALWAYS an alternative to genocide!!!!!!

Think about it, it really is common sense. Killing: wrong, compassion: good.