AP was there: US drops atomic bombs on Japan in 1945

[evadgib]

Posted 3 mins into VJ day:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02zmj9g

[meltingpot2015]

because the winner writes the book of history......If the Germans would have dropped the bomb all scientists, politicians, engineers and airplane staff would have been hang.

I tend to agree with this perspective (with exceptions**):

This was not a case of "victor's justice" or Allied hypocrisy.

An important point of fact: international military tribunals for conducting strategic bombing campaigns during World War II prosecuted neither German nor Japanese defendants.

Distinguishing between atomic bombing and conventional strategic bombing is morally problematic.

The single biggest loss of life from aerial bombing was not Hiroshima, not Nagasaki; it was a single firebombing raid on Tokyo, Operation Meetinghouse. At least 100,000 were killed, possibly up to 300,000 were killed, more than either the Hiroshima or Nagasaki bombing individually, maybe more than them combined. It seems dubious to me to distinguish between what does the killing, ionizing radiation vs. high explosive vs. incendiaries. Is one morally permissible and another not? Is it a question of scale of killing?

Some german officials were indeed hung, for other war crimes (not aerial bombings):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_trials

As for war crimes from another decade (Vietnam War) and the Mỹ Lai Massacre (In Vietnam called the Son My Massacre), only one person was convicted (A Lieutenant of the U.S Army):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre

he was originally given a life sentence, but served only three and a half years under house arrest.

** - The exceptions I spoke of before. Bringing war crimes charges for Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have meant bringing war crimes charges for all bombings of civilian populations and allied forces were responsible for a lot of these and mass expulsions of German people from their homes. See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_trials

The nations sitting in judgement have so clearly proclaimed themselves exempt from the law which they have administered."⁹²

Edited August 23, 2015 by meltingpot2015

[billd766]

There was a different philosophy and there were different treaties about war in WWII. It's also noteworthy that WWII is the last war that the allies won outright to to point of surrender.

The belief then was to get the people of a country to want their leaders to surrender. The people of each country were held responsible for the leaders they allowed to have power. The war was against an entire country, not just some guy in a foxhole.

Berlin was bombed mercilessly 363 times without regard to any casualties. Those who weren't killed were often left badly injured and without utilities including clean water and without housing. Certainly their medical care was disrupted. The plan was to bring Berlin to its knees. The same was true of the nukes in Japan. Why sacrifice the lives of allied soldiers to get control of a country that had bombed Pearl Harbor and taken over much of Asia? "Let the Japanese die rather than losing invading allied troops."

Now we have PC wars which we can't and don't win and we never will unless we once again decide that war is hell and let it all hang out.

Cheers.

The US has not been subjected to major destruction of it's cities, infrastructure and mass civilian casualties by an enemy nation since the advent of modern warfare. I often wonder if today US nationals would support total war if their homeland had suffered the destruction and civilian deaths wrought by war as other nations in the 20th & 21st centuries. As the US is currently the only superpower, IMO support for a policy of total war does comes across as arrogant.

I do believe the the Marshall Plan and rebuilding of Japanese institutions after WW11 are excellent examples of enlightened US policy.

The US engaged in "total war" in Europe in WWII to help the allies in Europe. The US didn't even want to be there and it wasn't until Churchill almost begged long enough and until Pearl Harbor. The US was actually determined to stay out of WWII until it couldn't be avoided. First the US responded to requests from Churchill to supply equipment after so many of the UK's ships were sunk and so many planes were shot down.

Eventually the inevitable happened but it took Pearl Harbor to wake up the US population to the point of wanting the war. Once the Japanese had bombed Pearl Harbor the "sleeping giant" was not going to be stopped. The nukes were just part of taking out the trash.

It is noteworthy that the US and allies took no spoils of war but to the contrary helped defeated nations to rebuild including allowing them to export their Volkswagens, Toyotas, toys and electronics, etc.

Cheers.

The Russians who were also "Allies" however did take entire factories and their contents as well as much other equipment a "spoils of war".

[simple1]

There was a different philosophy and there were different treaties about war in WWII. It's also noteworthy that WWII is the last war that the allies won outright to to point of surrender.

The belief then was to get the people of a country to want their leaders to surrender. The people of each country were held responsible for the leaders they allowed to have power. The war was against an entire country, not just some guy in a foxhole.

Berlin was bombed mercilessly 363 times without regard to any casualties. Those who weren't killed were often left badly injured and without utilities including clean water and without housing. Certainly their medical care was disrupted. The plan was to bring Berlin to its knees. The same was true of the nukes in Japan. Why sacrifice the lives of allied soldiers to get control of a country that had bombed Pearl Harbor and taken over much of Asia? "Let the Japanese die rather than losing invading allied troops."

Now we have PC wars which we can't and don't win and we never will unless we once again decide that war is hell and let it all hang out.

Cheers.

The US has not been subjected to major destruction of it's cities, infrastructure and mass civilian casualties by an enemy nation since the advent of modern warfare. I often wonder if today US nationals would support total war if their homeland had suffered the destruction and civilian deaths wrought by war as other nations in the 20th & 21st centuries. As the US is currently the only superpower, IMO support for a policy of total war does comes across as arrogant.

I do believe the the Marshall Plan and rebuilding of Japanese institutions after WW11 are excellent examples of enlightened US policy.

The US engaged in "total war" in Europe in WWII to help the allies in Europe. The US didn't even want to be there and it wasn't until Churchill almost begged long enough and until Pearl Harbor. The US was actually determined to stay out of WWII until it couldn't be avoided. First the US responded to requests from Churchill to supply equipment after so many of the UK's ships were sunk and so many planes were shot down.

Eventually the inevitable happened but it took Pearl Harbor to wake up the US population to the point of wanting the war. Once the Japanese had bombed Pearl Harbor the "sleeping giant" was not going to be stopped. The nukes were just part of taking out the trash.

It is noteworthy that the US and allies took no spoils of war but to the contrary helped defeated nations to rebuild including allowing them to export their Volkswagens, Toyotas, toys and electronics, etc.

Cheers.

The Russians who were also "Allies" however did take entire factories and their contents as well as much other equipment a "spoils of war".

German & Japaneses IP was gained by spoils of war by the Allies, some of which was created by the Axis powers using crimes against humanity.

In addition, I guess would come under the heading of 'spoils of war'; in early 1947 four million German soldiers were still being used as forced labour in the UK, France, and the Soviet Union