Are war crimes and guilt determined by the winner?
The United States was into firebombing entire cities, killing tens of thousands at a time in the process - not to mention Hiroshima and Nagasaki which were really just “bigger bombs”.
Was it proper for the Allies to firebomb entire cities while claiming they were valid military targets? When your bombs are killing civilians and children in bulk, isn’t that the very definition of a war crime?
And while I’m at it, is dropping bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki killing hundreds of thousands of people justified by saying “We prevented a full scale invasion of the Japan mainland, thus saving millions of lives”?
Quote by Rochard: “And while I’m at it, is dropping bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki killing hundreds of thousands of people justified by saying “We prevented a full scale invasion of the Japan mainland, thus saving millions of lives”?”
The short answer is yes, it was justified, and you can see all of the thoughts, arguments, and sophistry conjured by that question by following the link below.
Poster appears to have overlooked the London Blitz and other significant bombings by axis forces.
The big difference was with their inability to sustain them.
They continued to do as much harm to civilians as they were able.
The German withdrawal after the insane Ardennes '44 offensive and the Japanese in the Phillipines comes to mind.
Simple fact is they started the immense debacle that was WW2 and we fried a bunch of their asses.
War sucks.
Yeah, firebombing was a war crime. They killed hundreds of thousands of innocents children & women in Dresden, Colonia, Leipzig, etc, without having many stratageic sucesses. At hiroshima & nagasaki, they did the same, the quote that they killed thousands but saved millions is a lie, because even after these 2 bombs, japan didn’t surrender, the USA had to make a demonstration of power, flying donzens of thousands aircrafts through the clear skies of tokyo. Maybe, if they did this air demonstration before, Japan could have surrendered. Even if not, Soviet Union had just invaded Manchuria, only the fanatical japanese MILITARY didn’t want to surrender. The USA just wanted to save the lives of THEIR men, because they could have droped these bombs in military bases, HQ’s. I still do not agree with those bombs, no matter what anyone says.
Aside from the many other reasons, the U.S. did wish to save the lives of American soldiers, right along with those of the other Allied Nations. you may think what you like, thats your right, but you may find yourself in a decided minority.
Of course the USA wanted to save the lives of OUR (or allies) men. With the losses in the island hopping campaign, they estimated something like 500,000 casualties invading Japan itself. Why put that on yourself as a country when you have other means to end the war? Why would we save the lives of our enemies? The USA didn’t start the war with Japan, THEY started the war with the USA and they got the consequences of their actions.
Quite an arguable point. While I personally think that the Allies pissed away valuable air assets in the campaign and perhaps needlessly killed more civilians than they might have, I don’t think anyone objectively studying the campaigns would come away with the idea that there were no “strategic successes.” For instances: the fact that the Luftwaffe had to create a massive air defense network substantially weakened them on virtually every other front, Panther tank production suffered as the result of several airstrikes, German industry had to be dispersed resulting in production difficulties and transportation complications, etc…
At hiroshima & nagasaki, they did the same, the quote that they killed thousands but saved millions is a lie, because even after these 2 bombs, japan didn’t surrender, the USA had to make a demonstration of power, flying donzens of thousands aircrafts through the clear skies of tokyo. Maybe, if they did this air demonstration before, Japan could have surrendered. Even if not, Soviet Union had just invaded Manchuria, only the fanatical japanese MILITARY didn’t want to surrender. The USA just wanted to save the lives of THEIR men, because they could have droped these bombs in military bases, HQ’s. I still do not agree with those bombs, no matter what anyone says.
If the U.S. had invaded in Operation Downfall, they inevitably would have dropped bombs on Japanese targets, all the bombs that could have been produced. And some in the military did want to surrender, some didn’t. But you can’t distill the Japanese Imperial Gov’t down to a monolith when in fact there were numerous factions that indeed wanted a peace, even if that didn’t mean “unconditional surrender.” And if the “fanatical” Japanese didn’t surrender from the atomic bombings, then what made them surrender?
I just told what did make them surrender. I’m not saying that the invasion of Japan mainland was the best way, but as I told in my previous post, the allies should tried to find another way to end the war with japan, and I say again, why didn’t they bomb only militar factories, HQ’s, bootcamps, ports, anything vital to the Japanese war effort? and what was the militar & strategic importance of Hiroshima & Nagasaki? For more crazy as it sounds, why didn’t they bomb industrial cities, more important, and previously advised the local population of the attack? the japanese air force was completely destroyed! I mean, I think that the USA should have tried any & every option to avoid the nuclear bombs, even if the population ignored advises, the bombing at harbors, factories, etc, didn’t make results. only when the only remainder option was the atomic bomb, they should have droped it, even if that prolong the war for months.
As you said, if the USA had invaded japan, they would have bombed the things I said before, but I think they should have bombed without invading Japan, because, as you said, there were japanese that wanted peace, and those who didn’t want, and probably those who didn’t want may had tried to fight the allied soldiers, or commit mass suicide, as they did in Saipan
and as tankgeezer said, this kind of topic was “fought to death” before, so I will stop posting here. Remembering that all what I said its my opinion, don’t take it by the way I’m the "owner of truth!
Could it possibly be argued that the Germans bombing the UK, France, Warsaw, etc was in the hope of demoralizing the population (similar to the US bombing Japan in 1944-1945) but by the winter of 1945, the war was pretty won (against the Germans)? I can’t imagine much benefit that would have been gained from destroying non-industrial German cities that late in the war.
