War/Military Question

[BigSqwert]

I'm curious why the U.S. was able to get away with killing hundreds of thousands of civilians using atomic weapons in WWII and using chemical warfare on civilians in Vietnam without repercussion. Wouldn't any other country be charged with war crimes using those tactics? Could you imagine if it was Russia or someone else who did that to civilians? I'm not trying to bait...I honestly want to know why it was ok for us to use those tactics.

[Jake]

Mainly because it preceded the United Nations. The UN was founded by the war's victors and, to some extent, we didn't quite realize how devastating those weapons would be. There have been quite a few scholars, at least, that have been very critical with the way we fought in Japan. Lots of civilian death and not just with the nukes.

 

We didn't treat occupied Germany well either -- a common topic when Germans reminisce about the post-war era was how if you were a woman in West Germany, you were raped by an American.

 

In general, the standards of conduct were unwritten and not as high. We were a very racist people, we as a nation hated "Japs" and Jews and Germans and lots of other people. It didn't seem that bad of a thing to mistreat them. See, Japanese Internment.

 

Only the Germans really suffered ex post facto punishment, and I honestly don't feel too bad about that (at least, about the leadership). The Russians also deserved it more than Americans, but again when I say Russians it is really mostly Joseph Stalin.

[DukeNukeEm]

We dropped the atomic bomb because the Soviets had just invaded Manchuria and we needed to 1) win an unconditional surrender from Japan ASAP and 2) make it clear to the Soviets we were not to be f***ed with. That's the reason.

 

It wasn't because mean ole America was so evil and racist that we wanted to flash fry a hundred thousands dirty Japs in the blink of an eye. If that was our real motivation our post-war occupation of Japan and Germany would not have been so benevolent. "America dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima because they were racist" has to be the most blatantly stupid thing anyone has ever said about the topic. You didn't come up with yourself did you? Where did you read that?

 

As for why it wasn't a war crime? We won.

Edited April 21, 2013 by DukeNukeEm

[Balta1701]

We dropped the atomic bomb because the Soviets had just invaded Manchuria and we needed to 1) win an unconditional surrender from Japan ASAP and 2) make it clear to the Soviets we were not to be f***ed with. That's the reason.

 

It wasn't because mean ole America was so evil and racist that we wanted to flash fry a hundred thousands dirty Japs in the blink of an eye. If that was our real motivation our post-war occupation of Japan and Germany would not have been so benevolent. "America dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima because they were racist" has to be the most blatantly stupid thing anyone has ever said about the topic. You didn't come up with yourself did you? Where did you read that?

 

As for why it wasn't a war crime? We won.

Atomic bombing of Hiroshima: August 6, 1945

Atomic bombing of Nagasaki: August 9, 1945

Soviet Invasion of Manchuria begins: August 9, 1945.

[DukeNukeEm]

Atomic bombing of Hiroshima: August 6, 1945

Atomic bombing of Nagasaki: August 9, 1945

Soviet Invasion of Manchuria begins: August 9, 1945.

Your point? After what happened in Europe there wasn't much mystery over what the Soviets were going to do in East Asia. Even in 1945 you couldn't just sneak an army the size of one the Soviets had to invade Manchuria across the entirety of Russia without your allies noticing.

[Balta1701]

Your point? After what happened in Europe there wasn't much mystery over what the Soviets were going to do in East Asia. Even in 1945 you couldn't just sneak an army the size of one the Soviets had to invade Manchuria across the entirety of Russia without your allies noticing.

That it makes zero sense to say that the U.S. dropped the bomb because the Soviets had just invaded Manchuria when the actual history is the opposite order. Your interpretation of the history requires those events to be backwards.

 

The Soviets had pledged to launch a war against Japan at Potsdam at the request of the Americans, and the U.S. informed Stalin of a secret weapon at the same conference. The Soviets said that they could invade earlier than they actually did, they stalled for a few days, then the U.S. vaporized a city. At that point, the Soviets launched their invasion.

 

The U.S. dropping those bombs was not to scare an army that had already invaded manchuria, as you stated, since that army had not invaded manchuria.

[farmteam]

Duke hit on the reason for no war crimes -- we won. Well, we didn't "win" Vietnam but it's not like there was going to be a faction strong enough to impose sanctions on the U.S.

 

I still don't think dropping the bomb on Hiroshima was a patently wrong decision.

[DukeNukeEm]

That it makes zero sense to say that the U.S. dropped the bomb because the Soviets had just invaded Manchuria when the actual history is the opposite order. Your interpretation of the history requires those events to be backwards.

 

The Soviets had pledged to launch a war against Japan at Potsdam at the request of the Americans, and the U.S. informed Stalin of a secret weapon at the same conference. The Soviets said that they could invade earlier than they actually did, they stalled for a few days, then the U.S. vaporized a city. At that point, the Soviets launched their invasion.

 

The U.S. dropping those bombs was not to scare an army that had already invaded manchuria, as you stated, since that army had not invaded manchuria.

Nobody other than a few hundred Americans knew what the secret weapon was or what it was capable of doing. By the time Potsdam rolled around the Cold War had basically started (if not, Potsdam essentially began it)... nobody trusted each other at that point. That conference was more about an American-Soviet rivalry that any sort of cooperation.

 

The actual invasion of Manchuria was almost inconsequential. The Soviets were going to roll the Japanese there whenver they decided to invade, and when they actually did it despite us showing off the atomic bomb at Hiroshima we dropped another on Nagasaki. This isn't really up for debate in any serious forum, you're just being confrontational with me for some weird reason.

[Balta1701]

Nobody other than a few hundred Americans knew what the secret weapon was or what it was capable of doing. By the time Potsdam rolled around the Cold War had basically started (if not, Potsdam essentially began it)... nobody trusted each other at that point. That conference was more about an American-Soviet rivalry that any sort of cooperation.

 

The actual invasion of Manchuria was almost inconsequential. The Soviets were going to roll the Japanese there whenver they decided to invade, and when they actually did it despite us showing off the atomic bomb at Hiroshima we dropped another on Nagasaki. This isn't really up for debate in any serious forum, you're just being confrontational with me for some weird reason.

"Despite us showing off the atomic bomb"? WTF does that even mean? We didn't drop the atomic bomb on the Soviets. The combination made it a really, really bad week for the Japanese.

[Jake]

Soviets had spies in the Manhattan Project anyway. They had a pretty good idea of the nature of our weapon before the USA whispered in Stalin's ear about a secret weapon.

[gatnom]

"Despite us showing off the atomic bomb"? WTF does that even mean? We didn't drop the atomic bomb on the Soviets. The combination made it a really, really bad week for the Japanese.

 

We wanted to show the Soviets what we were capable of.

 

 

[Balta1701]

We wanted to show the Soviets what we were capable of.

And if that's the reason why we vaporized 200k people, then the original post is correct and it was an enormous war crime for no reason. It was the worst terrorist attack in human history in that view.

 

Instead, my reading of the situation is that the pro-military-forces in Japan were strong enough that nothing else the U.S. could have done short of invading the mainland would have ended the war, and I think the U.S. military planners were right to believe that would have cost hundreds of thousands of american lives and millions of Japanese civilians. It took the combination of 2 cities being vaporized by a new weapon and the invasion in Manchuria to break the military stranglehold on the government and create a situation where some variety of peace was possible.

[BigSqwert]

And if that's the reason why we vaporized 200k people, then the original post is correct and it was an enormous war crime for no reason. It was the worst terrorist attack in human history in that view.

 

Instead, my reading of the situation is that the pro-military-forces in Japan were strong enough that nothing else the U.S. could have done short of invading the mainland would have ended the war, and I think the U.S. military planners were right to believe that would have cost hundreds of thousands of american lives and millions of Japanese civilians. It took the combination of 2 cities being vaporized by a new weapon and the invasion in Manchuria to break the military stranglehold on the government and create a situation where some variety of peace was possible.

Couldn't vaporizing one entire city make that point?

[gatnom]

And if that's the reason why we vaporized 200k people, then the original post is correct and it was an enormous war crime for no reason. It was the worst terrorist attack in human history in that view.

 

Instead, my reading of the situation is that the pro-military-forces in Japan were strong enough that nothing else the U.S. could have done short of invading the mainland would have ended the war, and I think the U.S. military planners were right to believe that would have cost hundreds of thousands of american lives and millions of Japanese civilians. It took the combination of 2 cities being vaporized by a new weapon and the invasion in Manchuria to break the military stranglehold on the government and create a situation where some variety of peace was possible.

 

It wasn't the only reason we did it, perhaps not even the main reason, but you're sticking your head in the sand if you don't believe that showing our ability to destroy entire cities with one bomb wasn't part of it. We also didn't want Russia in Japan, just like we didn't want them anywhere else for the next 40 years. And, the only way to do that was to end the war as quickly as possible...

Edited April 21, 2013 by gatnom

[Balta1701]

Couldn't vaporizing one entire city make that point?

And that second city happening might well have been a mistake.

 

The U.S. dropped that first weapon and then it took several days for the Japanese Government to start getting realistic reports out of the area, but the U.S. wanted an immediate response. Think of the U.S. government as a person on Twitter wanting to know what happened in Boston last week. They dropped the 2nd because the Japanese had done nothing to respond to the first, but the reason the Japanese hadn't responded to the first is that after an entire city is vaporized it takes a few days to get reports out.

[DukeNukeEm]

And if that's the reason why we vaporized 200k people, then the original post is correct and it was an enormous war crime for no reason. It was the worst terrorist attack in human history in that view.

 

Instead, my reading of the situation is that the pro-military-forces in Japan were strong enough that nothing else the U.S. could have done short of invading the mainland would have ended the war, and I think the U.S. military planners were right to believe that would have cost hundreds of thousands of american lives and millions of Japanese civilians. It took the combination of 2 cities being vaporized by a new weapon and the invasion in Manchuria to break the military stranglehold on the government and create a situation where some variety of peace was possible.

Eh, this is where I'm straying to opinion but I'm not sure it would've been much worse than the atomic bombs. I think we knew that too. Patton blazed across France against an opponent that still had some fight left in them. Japan has some rougher terrain and they were a little nuts (the lengths of their craziness is a bit overblown), but they also were woefully incapable of fighting a modern war at the time.

 

Either way, we dropped the bombs, the war ended, the Soviets eventually got one too and the whole point of cooking those two cities was rendered moot. Maybe the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki made it more difficult to anyone to work up the nerve to unleash nuclear weapoons in the Cold War, but nobody really knows.

 

I don't think it was a war crime. I think a precedent of total war had long been set and while awful Hiroshima doesn't even compare to firebombings in Dresden and Tokyo or the shelling of Berlin.

[DukeNukeEm]

And that second city happening might well have been a mistake.

 

The U.S. dropped that first weapon and then it took several days for the Japanese Government to start getting realistic reports out of the area, but the U.S. wanted an immediate response. Think of the U.S. government as a person on Twitter wanting to know what happened in Boston last week. They dropped the 2nd because the Japanese had done nothing to respond to the first, but the reason the Japanese hadn't responded to the first is that after an entire city is vaporized it takes a few days to get reports out.

Look earlier at this dates you posted. That'll answer your question.

[Balta1701]

Look earlier at this dates you posted. That'll answer your question.

This doesn't make sense to me. The bombings were 3 days apart. Hiroshima didn't exactly have iphone cameras on August 6th. The first representatives of the government that arrived in the city took several days to reach the blast zone. By then, it was August 9th and the 2nd bomb was being dropped.

[DukeNukeEm]

What else happened on August 9th?

[Balta1701]

Eh, this is where I'm straying to opinion but I'm not sure it would've been much worse than the atomic bombs. I think we knew that too. Patton blazed across France against an opponent that still had some fight left in them. Japan has some rougher terrain and they were a little nuts (the lengths of their craziness is a bit overblown), but they also were woefully incapable of fighting a modern war at the time.

 

Either way, we dropped the bombs, the war ended, the Soviets eventually got one too and the whole point of cooking those two cities was rendered moot. Maybe the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki made it more difficult to anyone to work up the nerve to unleash nuclear weapoons in the Cold War, but nobody really knows.

 

I don't think it was a war crime. I think a precedent of total war had long been set and while awful Hiroshima doesn't even compare to firebombings in Dresden and Tokyo or the shelling of Berlin.

I don't know what conclusion to draw from it, but one of those little anecdotes that always struck me was that the Nuremburg trials were setting up to include Donitz in the group of people sentenced to life in prison or death for leading the war in the Atlantic and targeting civilian traffic, but then the defense pointed out that Nimitz had run the exact same war in the Pacific against Japan. Because of that, Donitz only wound up with 10 years, and IIRC didn't serve all of it.

[Balta1701]

What else happened on August 9th?

That absolutely played into the japanese ability to surrender as well. Suddenly they had another army facing their army. In about 3 days, 2 of their cities vaporized and they had to face the Soviet army.

 

And still, there was a coup attempt by the hawks to try to prevent the Emperor from taking control and offering a surrender, despite all of that.

 

The Soviet invasion might have taken longer or even never happened had the U.S. not dropped the bomb, they had every reason to make excuses to drag their feet, but once the U.S. did that, the Russians made their move, and that was enough to give the Japanese reason to strike peace.