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

... Timber thats a good post but for me there is a logical error. As you explain in some detail, there was great reluctance on behalf of the military to surrender, in fact many units kept on fighting. The Japanese had by that stage lost millions. They were (or some were) prepared to lose millions more. So what if the American enemy started using a bigger bomb? What suddenly made them accept unconditional surrender with no guarantees about the treatment of the emperor, when they had lost hundreds of thousands of people in the latter stages of the war fighting to guarantee just that? There was no other reason to keep fighting except honour. They were not going to win, it was just a matter of how they died. You dont change views like that with atom bombs.

... Another Imperial conference was convened, and while there was still much bickering, with the War Cabinet holding out for the last-ditch defense, the Emperor said he felt there was no choice but to accept the Allied terms. The cabinet then acceeded to the Emperor's decision ...

Quote, "It was close because one of the jurors was the friend of President Truman." It was not close because he was a friend of President Truman. He didn't even know President Truman; wasn't even born. Besides, before any trial, potential jurors are asked if they know the defendant. Everything you have done is 'fictional.' That you and your fellow students may have learned how to do research and debate is another matter.

In fact, Admiral William D. Leahy, Truman's chief of staff, told Mr. Truman that neither a costly invasion of Japan, or the use of the atomic bomb, was necessary.

Japan knew they could no longer hold out, despite the rantings of their military leaders, and they were ready to surrender on the condition that Hiroheto not be killed or tried as a war criminal. Truman knew this. He intercepted and decoded five messages from Japan to the Soviet Union all seeking surrender. Their only condition was the safety of their emperor.

Their only condition was the safety of their emperor. What makes this fact even more shocking is that in the Potsdam Proclamation of 1945 the United States admitted that they were willing to accept Japan's conditions of surrender. They stated, unequivocally, that they were willing to allow Japan to establish it's own government.

This raises the question: why would America grant the request of Hiroheto's safety, but refuse the offer of surrender that accompanied it?

There can be only one explanation: that the United States did not want Japan to surrender.

Truman was uneasy about Stalin turning the eastern European nations into communist states, and at the Yalta Conference, the Soviet Union had told the United States they would invade Japan by August 8th. Originally, the United States had sought the intervention by the Soviet Union, and even promised Stalin territory in Manchuria and Japan if they invaded Japan successfully. However, political tension between the United States and the Soviet Union had increased considerably since the Soviet Union had first agreed to the invasion after the downfall of Germany, and America now thought they could win the war alone. But they had to do it fast, or else Stalin would invade Japan and seize land for his growing empire. Truman didn't want to sit on a $2 billion dollar project, especially if it had the ability to intimidate the growing power of the Soviet Union, and apparently his generals didn't want to either.

155,200 people died at Hiroshima or within a year from radiation sickness.

What makes the events of Hiroshima and Nagasaki unforgivable however, is the fact that not only did Truman know that the Japanese were willing to surrender as early as January, but that the United States knew about the poisonous effects of the bomb on civilians.

It was only after the war that the American public learned about Japan's efforts to bring the conflict to an end. Chicago Tribune reporter Walter Trojan, for example, was obliged by wartime censorship to withhold for seven months one of the most important stories of the war.

In an article that finally appeared August 19, 1945, on the front pages of the Chicago Tribune and the Washington Times-Herald, Trohan revealed that on January 20, 1945,
two days prior to the departure for the Yalta meeting with Stalin and Churchill, President Roosevelt and Vice President Truman received a 40-page memorandum from General Douglas MacArthur outlining five separate surrender overtures from high-level Japanese officials. This memo showed that the Japanese were offering surrender terms virtually identical to the ones ultimately accepted by the Americans at the formal surrender ceremony on September 2 -- that is, complete surrender of everything but the person of the Emperor. Specifically, the terms of these peace overtures included:

Complete surrender of all Japanese forces and arms, at home, on island possessions, and in occupied countries.
Occupation of Japan and its possessions by Allied troops under American direction. Japanese relinquishment of all territory seized during the war, as well as Manchuria, Korea and Taiwan.
Regulation of Japanese industry to halt production of any weapons and other tools of war. Release of all prisoners of war and internees,
And the surrender of designated war criminals.

The peace overtures had only one stipulation - the safety of the Emperor.

In April and May 1945, Japan made three attempts through neutral Sweden and Portugal to bring the war to a peaceful end.

Why would the Government tell Sweden to ignore Japanese peace offers?

You, the Jury must ask yourselves, was there any reason to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Was there any reasoning, any justification, any purpose behind the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians? We know the reasoning could not have been peace - Japan had been offering to surrender for the better half of a year when Hiroshima was bombed. We know the reasoning could not have been to guarantee the release of American POWs - Japan had already agreed to that. We know the reasoning could not be ensuring that Japan met our terms of surrender: Japan had already agreed to meet every condition we had outlined, as long as Hiroheto was promised safety.

He violated International Law by dropping a radioactive weapon.

He refused to allow Japan to surrender,

Even more unforgivable is that Truman attempted to maximize casualties by dropping the atomic bomb on areas that were "most susceptible to damage." The official Bombing Survey Report stated that "Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen as targets because of their concentration of activities and population."

8. Mr. Truman, why not allow Japanese civilians to evacuate by advanced warning before you dropped the bomb?

Question: How does it make you feel to know that President Truman refused to accept terms of surrender that would have brought POWs home 7 months earlier, and brought those responsible for your plight to justice?

15. Mr. Truman isn't it true that even General Dwight D. Eisenhower, arguable the most important General of World War Two, and the current President of the United States was opposed to the dropping of the bomb?

The defense's main argument throughout the trial to explain the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki has been that Japan would not have surrendered, and an invasion of Japan would have been devastating. However, the truth is that an invasion of Japan was never, ever, necessary. Truman knew that the Japanese had only 3 months of oil and food left. The Naval blockade of Japan was preventing resources from coming in. Air strikes had completely destroyed Japan's ability to wage war. Simply stated, America had utter air and naval superiority, and Japan was sealed off from the rest of the world within the confines of its Island nation.

The Japanese war criminals have long since been tried and convicted for their crimes. Now it is Truman's turn to be brought to justice.

The trial finished today.

Charge 1: That there were better options, but Truman choose to ignore them.

Guilty: 7-2

Charge 2: That Truman is a war criminal due to violating the 1907 Hauge Conventions, and thereby international laws of war.

Guilty: 5-4

It's not completely fictional. The details are realistic to a practical degree.

>This is why I keep banging on (no pun intended!) about this. The advent of nuclear weapons was a world changing event. The relationships between states would be totally transformed. It was in every sense BIG.

This is why I suspect, although I admit I have no absolute proof, that the US leadership deliberately hindered Japanese attempts to surrender in order to test the new devices on real enemy targets.

>Timber thats a good post but for me there is a logical error. As you explain in some detail, there was great reluctance on behalf of the military to surrender, in fact many units kept on fighting. The Japanese had by that stage lost millions. They were (or some were) prepared to lose millions more. So what if the American enemy started using a bigger bomb? What suddenly made them accept unconditional surrender with no guarantees about the treatment of the emperor, when they had lost hundreds of thousands of people in the latter stages of the war fighting to guarantee just that? There was no other reason to keep fighting except honour. They were not going to win, it was just a matter of how they died. You dont change views like that with atom bombs.

>I believe that after both the uranium and the plutonium bombs were used the American position changed slightly. It may have still been unconditional surrender on paper, but in fact the Emperor was left alone when many people wanted him tried for war crimes. I think it was fore-knowledge that the dignity of the Emperor was not to be impugned that brought about the surrender and not the atomic bombing per se.

Steve and Oralloy - perhaps the 2 of you can agree on the mathematical formulation that it was sufficient but not necessary?!