Were the crew of the Enola Gay war criminals?

[outhouse]

The Japanese should be very grateful that Operation Coronet was cancelled.

Your not kidding

this is just a issue of a few people not understanding the history of the situation

 

[Mathematician]

That excuse didn't fly at the Nuremberg trials. :bonk:

The Nuremberg trials were mostly a sham.

Collateral during total war is to be expected, sadly. It's really unavoidable at that point.

 

[cablescavenger]

How the Atomic Bomb Saved 4,000,000 Lives

[SIZE=+1]How the Atomic Bomb Saved 4,000,000 Lives[/SIZE]

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” Joseph Goebbels

 

[dust1n]

I've always just thought of all war activities that are usually crimes defined by the state carried out in hopes to influence foreign governments? Anything you would do in war to anyone would be considered a crime now. We, apparently, make all kinds of exceptions. The world did not sound like a thrilling place to be 1900-1960. Yeah, dropping the bomb did save lives. After all, we were firebombing wood cities killing half the populations of every equivalent large cities in America at the time, before the bomb. Had we not dropped the bomb on them, we probably we would dropped enough mustard gas to slaughter entire populations. A lot of dickheads made dick moves all over the world during WW2. We were devout to stopping the Axis, since they could have possibly taken over the whole world over time, for all we know. We were also devout to maintaining naval dominance and employing economic imperialism around the world, especially in China. And we were quick to help France to maintain a brutal dominance over Vietnam before Japan took over, and after we liberated Vietnam from Japan. We maintained that venture for 12 years before we ended up directly fighting the war when French conceded to the will and self-determination of the Vietnamese people. We did this under the guise of 'stopping the spread of Communism'.

I thought the movie Fog of War, with interviews with Robert McNamara, was particularly eye-opening.

 

[McBell]

Would one or more of those saying it was a "war crime" please be so kind as to present the actual specific charge, the reasoning, and evidence for such?

 

[outhouse]

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” Joseph Goebbels

why do you post a NAZI statement????????????????????????????????

 

[YmirGF]

Would one or more of those saying it was a "war crime" please be so kind as to present the actual specific charge, the reasoning, and evidence for such?

My thoughts, exactly. I learned a long time ago that you cannot look at the past with the judgment of the present. It does not further your understanding of events AS they unfolded. Sad topic, really.

 

[nnmartin]

It usually seems to be Victors Justice in these scenarios.

I'm sure if the Japanese and Germans had won WW2 the crew of the Enola could have been put on trial alongside, Truman, Churchill, Stalin etc..

The winner dictates the terms or certainly follows their own interpretation of international law.

 

[dust1n]

Would one or more of those saying it was a "war crime" please be so kind as to present the actual specific charge, the reasoning, and evidence for such?

4th Geneva Convention - Article 33. No protected person may be punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.

Under the 1949 Geneva Conventions collective punishments are a war crime. By collective punishment, the drafters of the Geneva Conventions had in mind the reprisal killings of World Wars I and World War II. In the First World War, Germans executed Belgian villagers in mass retribution for resistance activity. In World War II, Nazis carried out a form of collective punishment to suppress resistance. Entire villages or towns or districts were held responsible for any resistance activity that took place there. Additional concern also addressed the United States' atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which, in turn, caused death and disease to millions of Japanese civilians as well as their decedents[sic]. The conventions, to counter this, reiterated the principle of individual responsibility. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) Commentary to the conventions states that parties to a conflict often would resort to "intimidatory measures to terrorize the population" in hopes of preventing hostile acts, but such practices "strike at guilty and innocent alike. They are opposed to all principles based on humanity and justice."

Fourth Geneva Convention - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But this wasn't completed until 1949... however, war crimes have been around for quite a while. I found this while I was looking up some info about it though, I kinda thought was funny.

The trial of Peter von Hagenbach by an ad hoc tribunal of the Holy Roman Empire in 1474, was the first "international" war crimes trial, and also of command responsibility.[6][7] He was convicted and beheaded for crimes that "he as a knight was deemed to have a duty to prevent", although he had argued that he was only "following orders".

War crime - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[McBell]

My thoughts, exactly. I learned a long time ago that you cannot look at the past with the judgment of the present. It does not further your understanding of events AS they unfolded. Sad topic, really.

I am hoping at least one of them can give the thread something other than the already boring, and not the least bit convincing, jumping up and down yelling "WAR CRIME!" as though it is some irrefutable fact.

 

[McBell]

4th Geneva Convention - Article 33. No protected person may be punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.

Under the 1949 Geneva Conventions collective punishments are a war crime. By collective punishment, the drafters of the Geneva Conventions had in mind the reprisal killings of World Wars I and World War II. In the First World War, Germans executed Belgian villagers in mass retribution for resistance activity. In World War II, Nazis carried out a form of collective punishment to suppress resistance. Entire villages or towns or districts were held responsible for any resistance activity that took place there. Additional concern also addressed the United States' atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which, in turn, caused death and disease to millions of Japanese civilians as well as their decedents[sic]. The conventions, to counter this, reiterated the principle of individual responsibility. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) Commentary to the conventions states that parties to a conflict often would resort to "intimidatory measures to terrorize the population" in hopes of preventing hostile acts, but such practices "strike at guilty and innocent alike. They are opposed to all principles based on humanity and justice."

Fourth Geneva Convention - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But this wasn't completed until 1949... however, war crimes have been around for quite a while. I found this while I was looking up some info about it though, I kinda thought was funny.

The trial of Peter von Hagenbach by an ad hoc tribunal of the Holy Roman Empire in 1474, was the first "international" war crimes trial, and also of command responsibility.[6][7] He was convicted and beheaded for crimes that "he as a knight was deemed to have a duty to prevent", although he had argued that he was only "following orders".

War crime - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now all you need is to show how the crew of the Enola Gay are guilty of this charge.

 

[dust1n]

Now all you need is to show how the crew of the Enola Gay are guilty of this charge.

I don't know if I could do that. Then again, I didn't mean to insist the crew specifically was. I wouldn't consider it mass murder on the crews part, but I wouldn't consider it less than mass manslaughter? It's a pretty grey area. And note, if I do think it falls into war crime, know I don't really have much judgment against it. Japan was pretty horrendous itself to everyone, but so where the Russia (perhaps the most to their own population). And of course Hitler and Mussolini were terrible. It's hard to match the minds next to the pilots of these kinds of things. Britain and France seemed to be the most justified in the entire situation with bombing German and Italian citizens, but their hands are so dirty from global imperialism that it's kind of a joke to think of them as innocent in any sense. But I don't think the Enola Gay crew are really that guilty. I guess it's different when you drop things from planes. If I wanted to find American war crimes though, one could look a few decades earlier in the Philippines or a couple decades later in Vietnam. On a side note: I don't mean to ramble off topic or anything... to answer your question bluntly, I couldn't place the charge on the crew, but I'm sure there is some higher ups a little bit more suspect to these sorts of charges, but that was true for any country.

 

[outhouse]

It's a pretty grey area.

NO its not

they were heros who saved millions of lives following orders. Even those at top who directed and created the orders are saints for the lives they saved

 

[InformedIgnorance]

NO its not

they were heros who saved millions of lives following orders. Even those at top who directed and created the orders are saints for the lives they saved

I agree completely with you - No it is not.

They are heroes who murdered up to 200,000 people (including the people who died as a result of their exposure in Hiroshima -not even including Nagasaki- up to 1950) not to mention any of the ongoing medical problems such as birth defects; true saints.

 

[outhouse]

I agree completely with you - No it is not.

They are heroes who murdered up to 200,000 people (including the people who died as a result of their exposure in Hiroshima -not even including Nagasaki- up to 1950) not to mention any of the ongoing medical problems such as birth defects; true saints.

let me know when you learn history

the bombs saved 4 million lives. it was either 2 big bombs or thousands of fire bombs on wooden houses.

That is not murder, they were heros for saving lives.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Murder is murder even if it stops more murder

Its like saying if I kill one person instead of killing ten people then I saved nine lives... thats BS.

We would not accept that as a justification for murder in some civilian court (we certainly would not call them heroes or saints for doing so) and nor does it fly as a justification for murder in a military court.

The premeditated killing of massive numbers of civilians without bothering to focus their attempts at a military target and minimise civilian deaths... that is what your 'saints' did, they may have done so supposedly to save lives - but don't try to fool anyone (especially yourself) by trying to say they were saving Japanese lives, it was to save their own hides and reduce the US casualties (and their allies) only. Yet, even were we to assume they were trying to save Japanese civilian casualties, that does not excuse what they did.

And yes I read 9-10's post - it was still not a focused attack on a specific military target, it would be like using an ICBM to target an individual soldier standing in a crowd. And labelling an entire city as being an appropriate target because there manufacturing plants, power stations etc means doing what? Intentionally widening the area to be destroyed, knowing that more civilians will die. Were they attempting to kill civilians probably not, but they sure knew it was going to happen and made no attempts to minimise it.

 

[dust1n]

let me know when you learn history

the bombs saved 4 million lives. it was either 2 big bombs or thousands of fire bombs on wooden houses.

That is not murder, they were heros for saving lives.

I'm not sure an alternative reality constitutes "history".

 

[dust1n]

NO its not

they were heros who saved millions of lives following orders. Even those at top who directed and created the orders are saints for the lives they saved

Hero's generally have earned title due to successes in multiple trials, while possessing a whole slew of likable characteristics. I've never met a hero short of a work of fiction. I don't want to make assumptions about these people. You can do what you wish.

IMO, just because America would have likely sent bombs and bombs of mustard gas and loads and loads of troops, doesn't mean it was the only option. Had someone stepped up and found another measure, they could have possibly saved even more lives. Was it necessary to drop TWO bombs?

 

[McBell]

I agree completely with you - No it is not.

They are heroes who murdered up to 200,000 people (including the people who died as a result of their exposure in Hiroshima -not even including Nagasaki- up to 1950) not to mention any of the ongoing medical problems such as birth defects; true saints.

Murder is murder even if it stops more murder

Its like saying if I kill one person instead of killing ten people then I saved nine lives... thats BS.

We would not accept that as a justification for murder in some civilian court (we certainly would not call them heroes or saints for doing so) and nor does it fly as a justification for murder in a military court.

The premeditated killing of massive numbers of civilians without bothering to focus their attempts at a military target and minimise civilian deaths... that is what your 'saints' did, they may have done so supposedly to save lives - but don't try to fool anyone (especially yourself) by trying to say they were saving Japanese lives, it was to save their own hides and reduce the US casualties (and their allies) only. Yet, even were we to assume they were trying to save Japanese civilian casualties, that does not excuse what they did.

And yes I read 9-10's post - it was still not a focused attack on a specific military target, it would be like using an ICBM to target an individual soldier standing in a crowd. And labelling an entire city as being an appropriate target because there manufacturing plants, power stations etc means doing what? Intentionally widening the area to be destroyed, knowing that more civilians will die. Were they attempting to kill civilians probably not, but they sure knew it was going to happen and made no attempts to minimise it.

please be so kind as to present an actual specific charge, the reasoning, and evidence for such.

From what I can see you are doing nothing more than jumping up and down yelling "IT'S MURDER!".

 

[nnmartin]

IMO, just because America would have likely sent bombs and bombs of mustard gas and loads and loads of troops, doesn't mean it was the only option. Had someone stepped up and found another measure, they could have possibly saved even more lives. Was it necessary to drop TWO bombs?

From what I have researched I believe that a costly land invasion or the atomic bombing of Japan were the only viable options at the time.

One bomb was dropped and Japan didn't surrender , so another was dropped and then they did - WW2 was over.

Harsh but effective.