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

c.i. nope 58 yrs old divorced, no family but thanks for asking

Our gov't warned the Japanese about what we had and what it could do. We gave them a chance to avoid the Bomb.

We were at war, and we used a weapon of war, having given them prior knowledge and a chance to avoid it. My question is: Was a sneak attack on a country not involved in war a war crime? The answer is YES.

Technically, the Attack on Pearl Harbor was a Surprise Attack, not a Sneak Attack. The Japanese Embassy Staff in Washington failed to decrypt, translate and in timely fashion deliver the formal notification of cessastion of negotiations and declaration of war. A minor point, but a point nonetheless.



timber

No dear Timber
No, I have not been absent
intentionally, but I HAVE
been away from my computer
while visiting grandkids over
the xmas holiday - so, do you
think that if the US and Allies
had lost he war, would it THEN
have been a war crime?? All Hitler
had to do was to succeed -- and
there would have been no trials, no
war crimes, no brutal beastly creatures
to blame, to point the finger at, who killed,
maimed & tortured others would there? He
would be a world leader, and I doubt
sincerely that he or any of his officers
would ever have been tried or held
accountable for anything but WINNING!
Didn't we have a few problems about
very innapropriate military practices
in Vietnam? Which, as we failed to win
anything in that engagement, other than
to kill off tons of young men, boys ..some
American soldiers WERE held accountable
for atrocities in war.

And wasn't it true that the presidential
advisors warned of the grave possibility
of such an attack - and what idiot EVER
keeps all their eggs in one basket,
anyway? What was our entire naval
fleet doing in one spot, just sitting like
a duck?

* Isn't it a necessity to understand the "ways"
and differing "cultures" and "beliefs" of our
opponents in war? Wouldn't you say, that even
with the most minimal knowledge of Japanese
mannerisms. codes of conduct, that for them
to openly capitulate or to bow before another
country & admit defeat, is totally impossible for
them and against their nature...that they would
try with their all to win and rather than admit defeat,
a Japanese man would fall upon his sword in order
to die without dishonoring his ancestors. We
knew that much about Japan - so their refusal to
capitulate did not really mean much because the
war was over! Hitler was beaten, Japan was
beaten to the point that even though it was
obvious to see for all the rest of the world....all
we were really dropping our new bombs for, was
to be sure to get the utmost & fullest attention
of the Russians. Then, we come to sit together
and to divide the spoils of a war.(of which Russia
expected the lions' share) However, after
witnessing just exactly what the USA was militarily
(and morally) capable of doing, after Hiroshima &
Nagasaki -- the USA were clearly the ones who
held the upper hand at the end of WWII.

I am not a war buff. My life has not taken me into harm's way and I have never been witness to war's aftermath. There had been the potential - I served during the Cuban missile crisis and into the first of the Vietnam era. The arguments pro and con here are very compelling. I voted 'yes' to the poll simply because I view all war as a crime. That does not mean I would have refused to serve in a real war that threatened us. But we have got to become civilized one day if we are to survive.

Babs: The situation with regard to Pearl Harbor was much more complex than that. As a matter of fact, our carrier forces were NOT at Pearl at the time of the attack. There was a carrier in New York, and one in New Orleans with orders to steam to San Francisco. Another carrier was in LA, brand new, needing to load planes and all ther materials of war. Halsey was at sea between Pearl and Wake Island with a carrier task force, and had already issued orders to his division to steam under war conditions.

Husband Kimmel was the American Naval Commander at Pearl. To the extent that the United States Army Air Force was detailed to protect the fleet, he can be absolved of that responsibility. Lt. General Short was more culpable, although this doesn't completely relieve Kimmel of having discharged his responsibilities thoroughly. Short believed, without very good reason, that sabotage was the most likely threat, and so, had aircraft ammunition and anti-aircraft ammunition (!?!?!?) locked up, and his planes clustered in the centers of airfields to protect them from saboteurs. The Japanese thought it likely that they would lose as much as 40% of their strike force in the initial attack, and were resigned to that. They were almost as surprised by the success of their attack as were the Americans. Genda and others pleaded with the commander of the First Air Fleet, Nagumo, to attack Pearl again, but he was a battleship commander, delighted and relieved to get off so lightly, and only thought of escape--he had no been in favor of the attack in the first place, and commanded this fleet on the basis of seniority. Had the Japanese been as powerful and as evil as protrayed after the attack, the damage would have far worse. Their intelligence in the islands was good, and they used the information to the fullest, but no one in the Imperial Navy command structure expected success on this scale with losses so minimal.

Very interesting points there Setanta, I can
see what you mean, and why and how it must
have all been so confusing and as thorough a
surprise to the Japanese as to the USA. Who
would think such a tiny country would have the
arrogance to do such a thing.

Japan was suffering from the lack of "Oil". Hmmmmmmmmmm!

Japan wasn't such a "Tiny Country". In the few decades between being "Reopened to The West" (by America, BTW), Japan's essentially militantly Samurai leadership mobilized a population ancestorily steeped in obedience to build a fully modern Industrial Machine of decidedly militarist flavor. She more or less burst onto the world stage around the turn of the last century. In 1904, she gave quite a chastening drubbing to the Russians. Over the next few decades, she militantly and militarily sought and gained advantage over her traditional rivals China and Korea, with considerable human misery into the bargain. Much of the world saw Japan as a bully by the late 1930s, and trade sanctions against Japan were not a solely American affair. American cessation of oil shipments to Japan stemmed from US and world outrage over Japanese behavior on the Asian Mainland.

An attack from Japan was a given. The US knew one was inevitable. Shortsidedness, misinterpretations, and bureacratic bungling precluded effective preparation for and advance detection of the attack. The US got caught with her pants down. With The Atlantic Convoys, The US had been more or less involved in a shooting war with an Axis Partner for many months. The Fleet, indeed the US, should have been at a a far higher level of preparedness. Japan took advantage of American distraction and gullibility to kill Americans so America would not be a hinderance to her daily demonstrated intent to kill other Asians and a few selected Europeans.

The US allowed herself to be surprised into war. A few years later, she assured Japan of no surprise. Japan was surprised by the first bomb. She was defeated by the second bomb, and Stalin was given something to consider.



timber

Setanta, I just want to make it clear that the "intelligence" you spoke of is strictly Japanese of Japan only, and not Japanese-Americans. c.i.

Faith, Hope and Charity!

Peace on Earth and Goodwill Toward All Mankind!

Happy New Year All!

tim, You're right. In contemporary times, we would rate them in the same vane as Muslim Terrorists, because their way of thinking was as extreme. The military was in control of the government, and they were ready to sacrifice every man, woman, and child in defending Japan. We can only hope that today's Muslim Terrorists will be tomorrow's forgotten extremists. c.i.

For an erudite, if long-winded essay on the various casualty estimates for the proposed invasion of Japan, which was obviated by the dropping of the A-Bombs, see: http://tigger.uic.edu/~rjensen/invade.htm

It appears that, based on the estimates available to Truman at the time, the prevailing view was that such an invasion would cost a MINIMUM of 500,000 casualties. Even the most optimistic estimates placed the casualty level at 100,000 (although this figure is somewhat problematic, apparently being more of a "best guess" than a hard number).

Given this information (and it was really all Truman had to go on), it's arguable that, had he failed to use the Bomb, Truman might have been guilty of gross incompetence at best and of treason at worst.

Of possible interest is that a Strategic Case can be and was made for concentrating American Naval Assets in Hawaii: While a forward position placing our power within a few days steaming time of any potential Pacific Rim troublespot, the Islands were considered to be sufficiently remote from and inconvenient for the Japanese to directly attack. The alternative would have been to establish numerous smaller though still very considerable Military Marine Facilities in closer proximity to supposed danger zones, involving greater expense, much diplomatic wrangling, and lengthy, dangerously exposed supply lines.

Leaving Pearl Harbor vulnerable to attack was an inexcuseable product of exponentially increasing blunders. Basing The Fleet at Pearl made sense. Of course, San Diego and San Francisco weren't all that much further in terms of steaming time ... a few days. It was felt those few days might be critical.



timber

If the Japanese had of followed up on their early dawn Pearl Harbor attack, the world may have had other Super Powers. Why didn't they?

The Japanese Naval Command felt risk to their fleet outweighed potential benefit to be gained from continuing operations. They knew they had missed the carriers. In March and May of '42, that presumed risk was proven to be real, in The Coral Sea and at Midway. The Japanese lost the initiative in The Pacific in the spring of '42, and from the autum of '42 were forced onto the defensive.



timber

Anxiously awaiting knowledgable answers to this VERY GOOD question!

I wrote a damned long post, Lash, to answer that question--then aol lost the whole thing, and lost my connection into the bargain. I've not got the energy to do the whole thing over again. Briefly, the First Air Fleet commander, Nagumo, made the decision. As one did not question such decisions in the Imperial Navy, we will never know exactly why. In the post i lost, i went into considerable detail about comparative forces, and what the Japanese had NOT found in the basin at Pearl. Suffice it to say that an old-line battleship commander like Nagumo took counsel of his (very justified) fears of the naval power which the US still had available, and got out of Dodge. In judging Nagumo's decision, it is important to note that the First Air Fleet had three carrier divisions, comprised of Akagi, Kaga, Hiryu, Soryu, Shokaku and Zuikaku--the six largest carriers in the Imperial fleet, and in the case of the last two named, the newest and most modern. The only remaining carrier forces were those of the Eleventh Air Fleet, which was accompanying the Souther Task Force headed for the Phillipines. Nagumo's orders were to attack Pearl. They were also to bring the carriers back as soon as possible, because the Japanese were embarked on an amphibious invasion undertaking the like of which the world had never seen. Old WWII vets ain't a gonna like this, but the Imperial Navy deserves credit for having pulled off one of the most difficult attack operations ever conceived and executed.