Anyone who says it is a warcrime is usually a rabid america hater or a soviet junkie. Japs were willing to fight to the death both the US and the USSR because even if in reality their other terms of surrender weren't really feasible anyway, they were truly suicidal about their status of the Emperor. If anything the nuke strikes spared not only American lives, but Chinese and Russian lives as any Soviet-Japanese war would've been just as devastating. And the communists would have never have kept the emperor in power.
>>607279 >muh dresden meme 4000 tons of explosives unloaded on Dresden, killed ~30,000 people over two days. The Little Boy meanwhile was rated at 16,000 tons of TNT and killed ~80,000 at once. So tell me in what way the Dresden bombing was worse than Hiroshima. Since it is worse in every way, I'm sure you can come up with a few.
>>606858 I consider the dropping of bombs to be the thing that stopped the war. Also the point where humanity started to appreciate radiation - and all the radio-isotopes which we use today were researched.
Radiation gave us the modern life and the comfort of it.. you guys should read sometimes about radioisotopes and their usage in ... well .. .everything.
>>607307 Agreed. All these legalities do is water down the definition of war to a conventional, symmetrical conflict with limited context. Ratifying somehow makes it the action internationally feasible. A cake with a cherry on top is still a cake.
>>607325 At some point one of your relatives most likely survived because of the usage of radioisotopes in medicine. You should be less ignorant and more involved in research and developing of your scientific background...
But why I am writing this you're underage most likely.
In the grand scope of things the atomic bombings didn't do all that much physical damage compared to the firebombings and other aerial campaigns such as Stalingrad and Dresden, hell Stalingrad looked like it was nuked by the time the battle was over.
The Atom Bomb was just a spectacle, an overwhelming show of force to instill complete fear and hopelessness in the enemy. and with that it worked,
but considering dresden, tokyo, the London Blitz and all other campaigns have already been carried out to much more deadly results than the atomic bombings, the US saw it as fair game like all the others.
>>607653 >but considering dresden, tokyo, the London Blitz and all other campaigns have already been carried out to much more deadly results than the atomic bombings Dresden = 3000 tons of explosives dropped, ~30,000 dead London Blitz = ~40,000 dead over 8 months Tokyo = ~80,000 to ~200,000 dead over 2 years Hiroshima and Nagasaki = ~140,000 to ~240,000 dead after two bombs.
So explain to me by what metric you consider Dresden, Tokyo, and London Blitz to have been more deadly.
many nations were destroyed, figuratively and literally. Japan suffered no ground invasion.
Poland, Germany itself, parts of Ukraine and Russia, parts of China. some of these countries were not only erased from the map (Germany), but their entire economies went from okay, to negatives, to non-existant, by the time the war was over. their entire governments were dismantled (Poland, Germany, Ukraine, most of eastern Europe).
Gross. I don't even mean that in the "your tastes are inferior" way. I mean that in the plain old "that's kind of nasty" way. That's a good way to enjoy a smoke that tastes like burning petroleum products.
If anything's a war crime, killing untold civilians should certainly count, but fire bombings also did that. I don't know. I'd say it's the new face of war, but there were plenty of sieges and the like, back in the day, which resulted in indiscriminate slaughter and murder. It's the way of war.
I see. If you were going to make a brand new argument that needed detail to explain what you were talking about why make it in a five word cryptic post in a reply to someone talking about aerial campaigns? But whatever.
Trying to use the scale and the effects of the entire war doesn't seem sound, at all, that's like saying torturing and shooting prisoners isn't a war crime because hey look what happened to China.
Basically it's not a war crime to kill civilians as collateral damage in war but it is a war crime to kill civilians for no reason or disproportionately kill civilians indiscriminately for something that is not militarily justified.
Obviously whether it is the "right course of action" is what we are discussing when dealing with that.
>Because it achieves the goal, which is to end a war that you are playing a defense part in
Well now you are getting there. Like I say I am a "fence-sitter" on this issue, I actually lean to the "not a war crime" side but with some doubts. The important issues revolve around what where the military goals of the US were and what was achieved and whether the mass civilian casualties of the specific actions of dropping the bombs was proportionate to that.
Right. You're back to making really complicated arguments in five or six words that don't enlighten at all.
Are you building a case that the US could not have won and got a peace treaty without dropping the nukes?
One of the key issues for me is whether the US would have had to invade Japan to win. That would have obviously caused massive deaths on both sides so if that is the case dropping the bombs is justified.
Anyway I'll leave it there, I don't have an axe to grind particularly on this issue. I am lurking the thread looking for good arguments either way because it interests me. I sort of dragged myself into a discussion with you because I queried a post that made no sense and then you started making other bad arguments at me.
Hopefully we've bumped the thread a bit to encourage discussion.
>>608282 you do realize that if we didn't, we would've invaded with millions of men from the finished European front and the Japanese emperor would've told his subjects to kill themselves, resulting in a dead nation, right?
>>611282 it's certainly a much faster way to get the japs to surrender, however it went.
but there's also another thing about russians invading japan that would make them drop their panties and make a run for it. it'll take a couple of months or years before stalin declares a full scale war to japan beyond border skirmishes and get them to surrender as soon as possible.
>>606858 Why not ask about the murderous, genocidal rampage Japan took out on the rest of Southeast Asia? Das est not war crime? Not that it justifies anything in any way, but Imperial Japan (specifically under Hirohito) were barbaric murderers. They were brutal, seriously. Why else do you think a full scale invasion of mainland Japan was chalked up as a last resort to be avoided at all costs?
>>614538 >Too bad America didn't build schools in Afghanistan. Spending as much to rebuild a country as you put into fighting a war there seems to pay off in the long run. We'd also need Allah to go on radio and say that he's fake.
>>614563 I disagree, the clear intent was to subjugate Japan under US Capitalist control for the incoming Cold War rather than let it fall to Soviet hands or influence.
Now why would the USA want this? Because they believed they had the correct economic model and were the right ones to save the world from the dangers of communism.
No doubt the methods were extreme and it would have been ethically questionable back then (albeit in grand hindsight it wasn't at all ethically incorrect because it saved millions of Japanese and American lives and perhaps all of East Asia from a communist massacre).
>>614551 Not same guy but what about firebombing Tokyo? Hiroshima and Nagasaki is always brought up because 'omg nukes are bad' but we had already bombed major Japanese cities. There was a shit ton of collateral damage caused by our strategic bombing runs.
>>614551 If strategic bombing of the civilian run and operated industry of a country is warranted then the strategic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were warranted.
The only people who focus on the ethics of using the atomic bombs are idiots who know little about the scale of strategic bombing during the war and who fail to recognize that the people involved in World War 2 had little to no reason to consider atomic bombs anything other than bigger bombs.
And claiming 'hindsight' based on current reality is not valid. That is like claiming the Russians didn't commit an war crime by mass raping German women because Germany is now the most powerful and economically successful lare economy in Europe.
>>614595 The western Allies and the USSR both knew that they would be enemies after the Nazis were gone. Both already had plans for a ground war in Europe against each other written up even before Germany was defeated.
This is an idiot meme and needs to die. The Soviets had no landing craft. They can't exactly swim from the Korean peninsula to Japan. You know what the Soviet plan was for continuing the war in case things went that long? Ask to borrow ships from the U.S.
If the U.S. was worried about Soviet gains in Japan, they'd just cancel Hula, not drop nukes.
>>606858 Mass milling innocent civilians is a part of USA's military doctrine. Plus they were and are the worlds biggest propaganda machine, so they dindu nuffin' they were good boys, killed Nazis for a just cause.
>>614587 >Islam isn't the problem, it's just a means of rallying people in a region full of a lot of other problems. Same as the noble and divine Emperor >The most populous Muslim country in the world is relatively peaceful. Indonesia? All I know about them is that they're at a crossroads.
>>606931 >muh japs were willing to fight to the death so it's ok to kill their civilians meme Guess who else had a similar idea.
Struggle between two ideologies. Scathing evaluation of Bolshevism, equals antisocial criminality. Communism immense future danger ... This a fight to the finish. If we do not accept this, we shall beat the enemy, but in thirty years we shall again confront the Communist foe. We don't make war to preserve the enemy ... Struggle against Russia: Extermination of Bolshevik Commissars and of the Communist intelligentsia ... Commissars and GPU personnel are criminals and must be treated as such. The struggle will differ from that in the west. In the east harshness now means mildness for the future.
>>614886 I would be the bigger person and say "Hey, I'm sorry our nation state evaporated all those civilians in yours those two times". It's no fucking skin off my nose, and it would set an example in the Asian world so maybe Japan would actually apologize for their atrocities.
>>611282 >implying japs weren't looking for an excuse to bow out with honor >implying detonating at sea in clear view from Tokyo wouldn't have been just as effective Americans confirmed for the biggest dindus ever.
>>614791 >US told them to surrender or face extermination like never before seen. >Say "No" >Get exterminated. >Apologizing because you told them what would happen. US doesn't have to apologize. Japan got its warning.
>>615778 And there was nothing stopping them from doing that again or reusing the same equipment for invading Hakkaido. Or hell, it wouldn't be a stretch for them to build their own. It would have taken some time for the necessary forces to be staged for a proper invasion of the home islands.
>>606858 The U.S. does not do the War Crimes anon. The U.S. does Retribution to those that create them and are not afraid to show to everyone. Because do you know why? The U.S. has never intended to humiliate any enemy by giving them a quick death and not by starvation, physical abuse, or degeneration.
>>615973 >The Germans themselves were at work on similar devices which would have changed the world in a different fashion. The Germans had surrendered in May of 1945 and had cancelled its atom bomb program in 1942.
>>615986 You'll be sickened to know, and for those who don't, about the outcome of Unit 731. In a similar Operation Paperclip, the Japanese Empire traded information pertaining to the experiments they conducted to both the U.S. and Russia. This obviously lead to later conflicts of interest. Also the one commanding the crimes was exonerated.
> transferred 149 ships and craft – 28 patrol frigates (PF), 24 minesweepers (AM), 30 large infantry landing craft (LCI(L)), 31 auxiliary motor minesweepers (YMS), 32 submarine chasers (SC), and four floating workshops (YR) – at Cold Bay
30 LC (LCI(L)) could carry about 5,600 troops at a time. Assuming none of them get destroyed on the way in, you'll still get swamped by even a single division opposing the landing, what with the 1:4 odds and the defenders having all the tactical advantages.
>Or hell, it wouldn't be a stretch for them to build their own.
Yes, the country with 0 amphibious experience going to build something that can transport a few hundred troops over a distance about 5 times what the Normandy landings went in worse weather, using the single shipyard in Vladivostok, will just happen in the snap of a finger.
To build a fleet like that, even assuming they get the designing and the manufacturing down on the first go (ha!) would literally take years, and by that point, the U.S. would have overrun Japan the old fashioned way.
>>616032 >30 LC (LCI(L)) could carry about 5,600 troops at a time. Assuming none of them get destroyed on the way in, you'll still get swamped by even a single division opposing the landing, what with the 1:4 odds and the defenders having all the tactical advantages. A single division would have about 4000 riflemen and ~100 artillery and MGs.
The Standard, or Type "B" division was organised as:
Headquarters (300) Infantry brigade (11600)  Headquarters Three infantry regiments, each of: Headquarters Three infantry battalions, each of: Headquarters and escort Four infantry (rifle) companies Machine gun company, with 12 x heavy machine guns Battalion gun platoon, with 2 x 70mm Type 92 Battalion Guns Escort and signal companies Regimental gun company, with 4 x Type 41 75 mm Mountain Guns Regimental anti-tank gun company, with 6 x Type 94 37 mm Anti-Tank Guns or Type 1 47 mm Anti-Tank Guns Field artillery regiment (2300) Headquarters and escort Three field artillery battalions, each of: Headquarters and transport Three field artillery companies, each with 4 x 75mm field guns (Type 38, Type 90 or Type 95) Cavalry regiment (battalion) (950) Headquarters and escort Three mounted companies Machine gun company, with 6 x heavy machine guns Engineer regiment (battalion) (900) Four engineer companies Materials company Transport regiment (1800) Up to six companies, with either carts, pack horses, or motor transport Divisional signals (250) Medical Unit (900) Four Field Hospitals, each of 250 personnel (1000) Water Purification unit (120) Ordnance unit (50) Veterinary unit (50)
Total personnel (19,770)
It was the Chinese who fielded tiny divisions, not the Japanese.
>>616435 Good job, you know how to copy paste. What you don't know is how military units work. Typically, IJA divisions by the end of the war had 3 regiments, which had 3 battalions each, which had 4 companies each, which had 3 platoons each, which had 3 squads each, which had 12 riflemen each. The rifle strength of a Jap division would be around 4000 soldiers, which is more or less standard for the time. Then you would have much fewer soldiers manning artillery or MGs, or doing support work. 5000 combat troops would not be outnumbered 4 to 1 by a division, unless for whatever reason all the support personnel decided to grab a gun and come out to fight.
>>616435 I should add that an American infantry division had an authorized strength of 3,240 riflemen, but a division would number up to 20,000. You really don't understand the first thing about military history.
>>616513 This is a moot point, because it's clear that you do not understand how to read military units' strength. But if it were not, then it would be a retarded point, because a defending force that is not isolated and on the verge of collapse would not send its support personnel to die for no reason. A division was structured as it was in pretty much every modern army, because that was determined to be the more efficient way. A division where 3-4000 men are rifle is stronger than a division where everyone grabs a gun and tenno heika banzai into the enemy.
>But if it were not, then it would be a retarded point, because a defending force that is not isolated and on the verge of collapse would not send its support personnel to die for no reason.
You are aware we're talking about a soviet invasion of Hokkaido, yes? Which would be
A) Blockaded by the Americans B) Pounded hourly by bombers. C) Might or might not have a functioning government. D)Would almost certainly be out of communications with whatever is in charge. E) Operating in conditions that are damn similar to previously cited above.
Fucking hell, these are people who would toss rifles or bamboo spears to Korean construction crews and locals and would get them to stick it in.
Was it particularly bright? Probably not. There's a reason why the Japanese soldiers were spectacularly ineffective in every land campaign except Malaya. But that's how they did operate, and it is enormously likely that yes, when the Soviets tried to make landing (and we're still making ridiculously optimistic assumptions about all of the landing craft actually making it there in one piece), pretty much everyone in the vicinity is going to be blazing away at them with whatever's at hand as soon as they're on the beaches.
I mean for fuck's sake, Clark did the same thing when the Salerno landings were going rough, and he was in a far, far less desperate situation than any Japanese defense of Hokkaido would be.
>>616551 You were talking about the Soviets being overwhelmed 4:1 when they land an LC. Now suddenly they have the entire USN helping them and providing air support? Looks like their chances have improved since your earlier post.
No, I'm talking about likely Japanese dispositions to an invasion of Hokkaido.
If we're being realistic about this, then they'll probably fuck something up trying to mount an invasion of about 350 km from Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk to Rumoi. Getting lost, hitting mines, running aground in the wrong location, chickening out, etc
I mean, have you ever looked at the very tentative plans that the Germans made to try to pull off a sealion? They wanted to drag along 4,000 horses on the first wave, and God knows why, since they weren't bringing along the kind of heavy equipment that needs horses to carry it. I expect that a Soviet invasion planned in a similar timeframe with a similar lack of amphibious expertise will include similar idiotic blunders.
>Let's be real here, civilians bombed by the US is just a smidgen of violence compared to the number of civilians the UK or Germany killed.
Unlikely, at least in the case of the UK (and Germany if you're only talking about their bombing campaigns and not stuff that the Einsatzgruppen were doing)
I mean, Max Hastings's work on the strategic bombing campaigns in Europe came to an estimate of 5-600,000 killed, and remember, a bunch of those would be American raids, not British ones. Tokyo alone was like 100,000, and the 2 nukes were another 120,000.
Not to say that I think they're war crimes, or that it should be suddenly different because an atomic weapon was deployed, but the U.S. probably did get more people with their aerial bombardment than the British did.
>>616677 >civilians bombed by the US is just a smidgen of violence compared to the number of civilians the UK or Germany killed. USAAF dropped more tons of bombs than the Brits. However, the USAAF did make at least a token effort to target shit, rather than going in and night and randomly tossing bombs out.
Thread replies: 140 Thread images: 8
Thread DB ID: 473272
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.