The Greatest War Crime Of Ww2

[CallMeTrent]

The Atomic Bombings.

There is no excuse for this war crime. Absolutely none at all. When will the myth that it was required to cease the war ? The only reason for the atomic droppings was to threaten the world, threaten the most progessive country the Soviet Union, and threaten the Japanese people to make them always remember America runs their country. They still have not left Japanese land.

Statements that have been made after:

"Certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."
-U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey's 1946 Study

"It always appeared to us that, atomic bomb or no atomic bomb, the Japanese were already on the verge of collapse."
-General Henry H. "Hap" Arnold
Commanding General of the U.S. Army
Air Forces Under President Truman

"Japan was at the moment seeking some way to surrender with minimum loss of 'face'… It wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."
-General Dwight D. Eisenhower

"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender… My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was taught not to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying woman and children."
-Admiral William D. Leahy
Former Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

"Careful scholarly treatment of the records and manuscripts opened over the past few years has greatly enhanced our understanding of why Truman administration used atomic weapons against Japan. Experts continue to disagree on some issues, but critical questions have been answered. The consensus among scholars is the that the bomb was not needed to avoid an invasion of Japan… It is clear that alternatives to the bomb existed and that Truman and his advisers knew it."
-J. Samuel Walker
Chief Historian
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

And before any bomb was even dropped:

"P.M. [Churchill} & I ate alone. Discussed Manhattan (it is a success). Decided to tell Stalin about it. Stalin had told P.M. of telegram from Jap Emperor asking for peace."
-President Harry S. Truman
Diary Entry, July 18, 1945

Short Timeline

People who look back at this (noting that the bomb was unnecesary) tend to believe that the reason for using the bombs was to beat the Soviet Union in getting to Japan. [America] needed a quick surrender so that the Soviet Union didn't get any of Japan.

July 17
President Truman at Potsdam writes in his diary, "Just spend [sic] a couple of hours with Stalin…. He'll be in the Jap War on August 15th. Fini Japs when that comes about."

--This shows that Truman knew approximately when the Soviet Union would be entering the war.--

July 18
More from Truman's diary entry:
"Believe the Japs will fold up before Russia comes in. I am sure they will when Manhattan appears over their homeland. I shall inform about it at an opportune time."

July 23
UK Prime Minister Winston Churchill remarks, "It is quite clear that the United States do not at the present time desire Russian participation in the war against Japan."

July 24
Walter Brown, special assistant to Secretary of State Byrnes, writes in his journal that Byrnes was now "hoping for time, believing after atomic bomb Japan will surrender and Russia will not get in so much on the kill, thereby being in a position to press claims against China."

August 3
President Truman aboard Augusta receives new report that Japan is seeking peace.

Walter Brown, special assistant to Secretary of State Byrnes, writes in his diary, "Aboard Augusta - President, Leahy, JFB agreed Japs looking for peace. (Leahy had another report from Pacific.) President afraid they will sue for peace through Russia instead of some country like Sweden."

August 6th - 1st Atomic Bomb dropped on Hiroshima
August 8th - Soviet Union informs Japan that it is entering the war
August 9th - 2nd Atomic Bomb dropped on Nagasaki

Japan's Attempts to Surrender

In his 1965 study, Atomic Diplomacy: Hiroshima and Potsdam (pp. 107, 108), historian Gar Alperovitz writes:

"Although Japanese peace feelers had been sent out as early as September 1944 (and [China's] Chiang Kai-shek had been approached regarding surrender possibilities in December 1944), the real effort to end the war began in the spring of 1945. This effort stressed the role of the Soviet Union ...

In mid-April [1945] the [US] Joint Intelligence Committee reported that Japanese leaders were looking for a way to modify the surrender terms to end the war. The State Department was convinced the Emperor was actively seeking a way to stop the fighting."

"In April and May 1945, Japan made three attempts through neutral Sweden and Portugal to bring the war to a peaceful end. On April 7, acting Foreign Minister Mamoru Shigemitsu met with Swedish ambassador Widon Bagge in Tokyo, asking him "to ascertain what peace terms the United States and Britain had in mind." But he emphasized that unconditional surrender was unacceptable, and that "the Emperor must not be touched." Bagge relayed the message to the United States, but Secretary of State Stettinius told the US Ambassador in Sweden to "show no interest or take any initiative in pursuit of the matter." Similar Japanese peace signals through Portugal, on May 7, and again through Sweden, on the 10th, proved similarly fruitless."

The Institue for Historical Review

Final notes:

[America] had already been bombing 60 of Japan's largest cities, killing hundreds of thousands of people in the process.

Japan was already ready (and trying) for surrender.

Japan was already on the verge of collapse.

The Soviet Union was about to enter the war.

The atomic bombs killed hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians.

Japan had been seeking peace as early as April, 1945. That was 4 months before we dropped the first atomic bomb on Japan.

[HighlyIllogical]

Sure. Absolutely none. Of course, you have to ignore the actions of Unit 731, Japanese cannibalism, the Holocaust, etc. etc...

[CallMeTrent]

The holocaust had nothing to do with the Japanese. If Great Britain decided to commit genocide would you consider it okay to A-Bomb two of America's most advanced and populated civilian cities? I would hope not.

Unit 731, I admit, was indeed a horrible operation. But did America not give amnesty to the scientists in return for the research and technowledgy that the unit was developing? And even still, there was no reason to use WOMD;s on civilian cities.

I haven't heard of the cannibalism your talking about. Maybe a source of where you got that information?

[TheloniousMONK]

Fail.

The United States would settle for nothing less than an unconditional surrender, had to act quickly to keep the menacing Soviet Union out of the conflict, and had intelligence that the Japenese were close to their own atomic weapon.

[altanese-mistress]

No. Just... no. More people were killed by napalm bombings on the Japanese isles anyways.

If you want to fight a real injustice, a majority of the population of Japan don't even know about the atrocities their military commited in WW2 towards civilians. And its not even denial; its that they simply do not know. Its not talked about at all in schools, and the government has never officially recognized it.

But in history, more Chinese civilians were killed by Japan than Jews by Germany. In one city alone, 20k women were raped; mostly children. You wanna fight this lack of knowledge, then join the many Koreans and Chinese who mail the Japanese Board of Education.

[AnkhX100]

At 4/19/06 09:48 PM, CallMeTrent wrote: Final notes:

[America] had already been bombing 60 of Japan's largest cities, killing hundreds of thousands of people in the process.

Who attacked Pearl Harbor? Japan started the war, so they had to realize what they were starting.

Japan was already ready (and trying) for surrender.

They were offered a chance to surrender at Postdam, and they refused, and they continued to kill our soldiers, so that's bull.

Japan was already on the verge of collapse.

Yeah, but the Japanese are not like the Germans, they were not going to surrender that easily. Look at Okinawa and Iwo Jima as examples.

The Soviet Union was about to enter the war.

They did enter the war, and mowed down the Japanese troops in Manchuria, and driving them out of Korea, all in a few weeks.

And do you think that Japap wouldn't be split into two like Germany or Korea? Better for Japan to suffer two atomic attacks than to be split into two countries.

Plus, the US was to invade the Japanese home islands, and that meant probable casualties up to 1 milllion of our soldiers. The dropping of the atomic bombs was justified.

The atomic bombs killed hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians.

No shit, but the Japanese killed 250,000 Chinese civilians as retaliation to the Doolittle's Raid, not to mention other atrocities commited in the name of Japan.

Japan had been seeking peace as early as April, 1945. That was 4 months before we dropped the first atomic bomb on Japan.

Like I said above.

[fahrenheit]

The Nazi's were already developing the atomic bomb and had much more funds and research to back them up, we were just lucky the main person planning the atomic bomb discovered what he needed in pencil lead.

[CallMeTrent]

No.

High Ranking officals even said that the Japanese would of surrendered even with interference from Russia. They also say that the Japanese were on the verge of collapse, with or without an atomic bomb. So why did they feel the need to commit such a horrible crime?

Try reading my post completely, even the quotes before posting.

[HighlyIllogical]

The Nazis surrendered, yes, but they didn't have such a culture of death before surrender.

Something new-->The cannibalism occured... "Documentary and forensic evidence supports eyewitness accounts of cannibalism by Japanese troops during World War II. This practice was resorted to when food ran out, even with Japanese soldiers killing and eating each other when enemy civilians were not available. In other cases, enemy soldiers were executed and then dissected. A well-documented case occurred in Chichi Jima 1945, when the Japanese soldiers killed, rationed and ate eight downed American airmen. (Ninth downed, Lt.JG George H. Bush, was picked by submarine USS Finback, and avoided the fate.) This case was investigated 1947 in war crimes trial, and of 30 Japanese soldiers prosecuted, five (Maj. Matoba, Gen. Tachibana, Adm. Mori, Capt. Yoshii and Dr. Teraki) were found guilty and hanged." I also saw a book on it in Barnes and Noble. Gotta find the title.

And something else--> With the exception of noncombatants, the Germans respected (for the most part) the sanctity of ecclesiastics and medical personnel in combat.

[jlwelch]

I believe this topic belongs here:

http://www.newground../topic.php?id=471390

[HighlyIllogical]

Not funny, welchie.

War crimes are not funny.

It's quite interesting how few people know about the Japanese war crimes in China.

[CallMeTrent]

There is nothing complex about this issue, the bomb was dropped to showboat in front of the Soviet Union, and Truman and those who chose to drop it should have been tried at the Nuremburg trials along with the Nazis

But intentionally slaughtering mainly civilians for the purpose of intimidating the Soviet Union is inexcusable. When so many high ranking military officials said it was not necessary, I dont give a shit what the President says. Slaughtering innocents for political purposes rather than military purposes is inexcusable.

The Japanese tried three times through Sweden and Portugal, who were neutral in the war, to try to bring the war to a peaceful end. The Japanese were trying to save face by not doing an unconditional surrender, but surrendering to whatever peace terms the US and Great Britain wanted.

The canibal issue should not be an issue. Would you eat human or starve to death? The choice to me is simple. Trying to use that in a debate is wrong, as soldiers and even civilians in plane crashes and ship wreck survivors have been known to resort to that kind of barbarism.

[CallMeTrent]

Im fully aware of what Japan did in China. I am not defending Japan itself, but the premise of murdering hundreds of thousands of CIVILIANS to prove a point and show off is just wrong. I wouldn't be complaining if military units and facilities were destroyed.

[HighlyIllogical]

The Japanese murdered millions of civillians as well. You do realize, I hope, that the Japanese would fight to the last man, woman and/or child, even civillians!

[altanese-mistress]

At 4/19/06 10:23 PM, CallMeTrent wrote: Stuffs

If America had instead invaded the Japanese home islands, there would be even MORE losses for the Japanese, not to mention massive casualties for Allied forces. And if they had, people like you would be compalining that they DIDN'T drop the atomic bomb and instead had millions killed on both sides.

The canibal issue should not be an issue. Would you eat human or starve to death? The choice to me is simple. Trying to use that in a debate is wrong, as soldiers and even civilians in plane crashes and ship wreck survivors have been known to resort to that kind of barbarism.

What about raping children? Or hows about gunning down civilians?

[CallMeTrent]

At 4/19/06 10:28 PM, GSgt_Liberal wrote: You do realize, I hope, that the Japanese would fight to the last man, woman and/or child, even civillians!

Not true. Have you missed the entire point of Japan trying to surrender three times peacefully just to be ignored by the U.S.? And Japans military murdering millions of people shouldn't of been responded by the U.S. bombing civilian cities. It should of been China defending itself, not the self acclaimed peace keepers of the world.

[BFG-Nine-Thousand]

Hey, guess what? If we hadn't dropped the A-bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima, THERE WOULD BE NOTHING LEFT OF JAPAN.

What's worse to you, the idea of us dropping two nuclear weapons and killing 200,000 people, or initiating Operation Downfall and losing an estimated one million American lives, and the lives of another estimated ten million Japanese civilians.

Do you have any idea what the fuck the Japanese military was doing during early '45? They were arming civilians with makeshift weapons consisting of clubs, awls, bayonets, spears, and bamboo poles. That, added with a near-zealous fanaticism on par with your average muslim extremist, would result in a near-total annihilation of Japan as a nation.

We would have stepped up our firebombings (which, by the way, killed more civilians than both A-bombs combined), invaded Honshu from Okinawa, and marched up the Home islands in a campaign that would border on ANNIHILATION.

Do you have any idea how desperate Japan was at that point? They were launching coordinated, government sanctioned suicide attacks, crashing aircraft into ships and troop transports.

------------------------------------------
---

Look, I'm not saying the Bomb was the correct answer, but it was a hellovalot better than any alternatives we had.

[AnkhX100]

At 4/19/06 10:10 PM, CallMeTrent wrote: No.

High Ranking officals even said that the Japanese would of surrendered even with interference from Russia.

Japan could of brough peace by agreeing to the Postam Declaration, but they didn't, so they didn't. They could of stop at Okinawa, but they continued to fight.

Not only that, the Japanese planned to divert the planned American-led invasion, named Ketsu-Go. This operation planned for extensive Kamikaze attacks to the US and Commonwealth fleet, about 10,000 planes to use.

Also, the entire civilian population of Japan was told and trained to fight the invasion to the death, formed in the "Patriotic Citizens Fighting Corps". They were to fight in a similar resistance offered at Okinawa to the Americans.

Estimates ranged that several million Japanese were to die, and that much of the Japanese industires and landscape destroyed.

It seems to me that you are simply jumping onto the "America is evil" bandwagon. The United States did not start the war, it did not kill millions in China, nor did it enslave enemy POWs and forced them in death marches. We didn't do that.

Nor did we refuse an offer for surrender 4 months before the atomic bombings.

Japan brought it about itself. and considering that Japan is an economic power in the world, and a prosperous democracy, so Japan hasn't suffered much as a whole.

The atomic bombings forced Hirohito to consider the pleas of the civilian cabinet members to surrender.

:They also say that the Japanese were on the verge of collapse, with or without an atomic bomb.

Civilian officials in the Japanese cabinet were seeking peace, but as for the military heads, led by Tojo, had much more influece over Hirohito,

:So why did they feel the need to commit such a horrible crime?

Try reading my post completely, even the quotes before posting.

[altanese-mistress]

At 4/19/06 10:32 PM, CallMeTrent wrote: Not true. Have you missed the entire point of Japan trying to surrender three times peacefully just to be ignored by the U.S.? And Japans military murdering millions of people shouldn't of been responded by the U.S. bombing civilian cities. It should of been China defending itself, not the self acclaimed peace keepers of the world.

The terms of those peace treaties and accepting them would have been the equivilant of having Nazi Germany near collapse, then accepting a treaty with them that would allow them to keep control of most the lands they had conquered and continue with the Holocaust.

[SolInvictus]

i don't see how they were trying to surrender. true; they were almost totally defeated but surrender was not one of their plans and from what i know they surrendered only after being threatened that a 3rd bomb would be dropped.

[hungapoe]

I have heard this random conspiracy theory bullcrap more then once... Its bs if anyone could have some sense talked into them, Id rather not post why because I want to post on the PETA topic XD

[A-Carrot-By-Dr-Riot]

I agree, Operation Downfall should have been implemented instead. What's not to like about bombing the rail system causing mass starvation of civilians.

The estimated casualties for such an operation were about 3 million American casualties and 5 to ten million Japanese fatalities. Just because some high ranking officials felt guilty afterwards and said that the Japanse might have surrendered, doesn't make it true. There are a lot of ways that things could have worked out and if Japan didn't intend to surrender it would have meant the death of all our POWs in Japan at the time if we were forced to invade.

[BFG-Nine-Thousand]

At 4/19/06 10:57 PM, Dr_Arbitrary wrote: The estimated casualties for such an operation were about 3 million American casualties and 5 to ten million Japanese fatalities. Just because some high ranking officials felt guilty afterwards and said that the Japanse might have surrendered, doesn't make it true. There are a lot of ways that things could have worked out and if Japan didn't intend to surrender it would have meant the death of all our POWs in Japan at the time if we were forced to invade.

Not to mention that in the time it would take for us to launch Downfall, the soviets would likely marshall their own invasion and probably take a good portion of the land in the name of Communism.

Oh joy, that's just what we'd need: a stalinist North Japan and a democratic South. It'd be like a Korean redux.

[Draconias]

Also, remember that every person who died in the Atomic Bombings were explicitly warned to get the hell out of town. In the first city, the smaller of the two, the people did not take us seriously. Many people died. In the second, much larger city, most of the population fled and fewer people died. We dropped thousands of leaflets warning them for both attacks.

We wanted as little damage as possible, which was the entire point of using the atomic bombs. If we had to attack Japan traditionally, it would be the most brutal, destructive fight in history with unacceptably huge losses. The United States had a choice: fight a series of battles with an expected minimum of more than 11 million casualties or attempt to smash Japan by hitting with something so far beyond their capabilities that they had no choice but to surrender.

By bombing Nagasaki and Hiroshima, we chose the lesser of two evils and saved as many lives as we could possibly manage.

[hungapoe]

Except without Isolationism in the north... then again I doubt a Stalinist nation would continually murder people for the fun of it.

[Deikan-Kalibran]

Yes, but do consider, finishing off the pacific theater would have meant nearly twice as many deaths than occoured from the A-bomb. Only this time, both sides would slaughter the hell out of eachother, resulting in "the pacific theatre blood bath" in history books.

[BFG-Nine-Thousand]

At 4/19/06 11:03 PM, hungapoe wrote: Except without Isolationism in the north... then again I doubt a Stalinist nation would continually murder people for the fun of it.

If a potential Soviet Japanistan existed, it would likely follow the isolationist ideals of Stalinism. Remember, the USSR's eventual economic goal was total self-sufficience. It never attained it, due to communism's inherent flaws, but it was damn good at isolating countries from one another- just look at North Korea.

The point is, Japan would be a very different place today if we had restrained ourselves: and probably not for the best.

[hungapoe]

At 4/19/06 11:10 PM, BFG_Nine-Thousand wrote:

At 4/19/06 11:03 PM, hungapoe wrote: Except without Isolationism in the north... then again I doubt a Stalinist nation would continually murder people for the fun of it.

If a potential Soviet Japanistan existed, it would likely follow the isolationist ideals of Stalinism. Remember, the USSR's eventual economic goal was total self-sufficience. It never attained it, due to communism's inherent flaws, but it was damn good at isolating countries from one another- just look at North Korea.

The point is, Japan would be a very different place today if we had restrained ourselves: and probably not for the best.

You never know, although you prove a good point Japan was capable of pushing of a stalinist regime, but probably maintaing a communist status, about Isolationism, that could've put the worlds almost current economy in danger, not to mention China, Southern Japan, South Korea would have a new "Superpower" (if it can be classified) radical isolationist. You have seen how the effects of North Korea have been running sweat the Hans Blix (spelling?) neck and the rest of the UN commite. But still, joo nevar know, but all I know is Souther Japan wouldn't have a Police Force and the US would have had a lot more reliance on Hawaii, The Philippines and Alaska...

[RicardoSanchezJr]

At 4/19/06 10:10 PM, CallMeTrent wrote: No.

High Ranking officals even said that the Japanese would of surrendered even with interference from Russia. They also say that the Japanese were on the verge of collapse, with or without an atomic bomb. So why did they feel the need to commit such a horrible crime?

Try reading my post completely, even the quotes before posting.

Ok dude... Japan did BONZAI charges off of cliffs rather than surrendering they were not going to surrender they would have fought till literally the last man. Who cares if they were about to collapse? More death on both sides and maybe the extermination of an entire nation would have happened if we didn't drop thise bombs... THERE WOULD BE NO PLAYSTATION!!! *cries*

[BFG-Nine-Thousand]

Also, if we didn't drop the nuclear bomb, all of the Korean peninsula would belong to the Russians, since the Japanese turned it over to us when they surrendered: If we failed to drop the bomb, Japan would have held on just long enough for the Soviets to overrun Korea, Manchuko, and parts of mainland China.

So yeah, we'd have a unified Korea.. a unified North Korea... yikes.