Were the crew of the Enola Gay war criminals?

[dust1n]

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.

I certainly agree it was harsh and effective, and those might had been the only two options viable for a desired outcome, but it was certainly not the only option. Had American just stopped the war, then the most amount of lives would have been saved than any other option, but I suppose this really has little to do with the course that would have saved the most lives.

 

[Bismillah]

If I remember correctly the use of the Atomic Bomb was also a show of force to the Russians, we need not kid ourselves that the use was purely humane or benign.

On July 21, 2005, the British New Scientist magazine undermined this chorus when it reported that two historians had uncovered further evidence revealing that “the US decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki ... was meant to kick-start the Cold War [against the Soviet Union, Washington's war-time ally] rather than end the Second World War”. Peter Kuznick, director of the Nuclear Studies Institute at the American University in Washington, stated that US President Harry Truman's decision to blast the cities “was not just a war crime, it was a crime against humanity”.

With Mark Selden, a historian from Cornell University in New York, Kuznick studied the diplomatic archives of the US, Japan and the USSR. They found that three days before Hiroshima, Truman agreed at a meeting that Japan was “looking for peace”. His senior generals and political advisers told him there was no need to use the A-bomb. But the bombs were dropped anyway. “Impressing Russia was more important than ending the war”, Selden told the New Scientist.

While the capitalist media immediately dubbed the historians' “theory” “controversial”, it accords with the testimony of many central US political and military players at the time, including General Dwight Eisenhower, who stated bluntly in a 1963 Newsweek interview that “the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing”.

Truman's chief of staff, Admiral William Leahy, stated in his memoirs 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.”

Nuclear scientist Leo Szilard recounted to his biographers how Truman's secretary of state, James Byrnes, told him before the Hiroshima attack that “Russia might be more manageable if impressed by American military might and that a demonstration of the bomb may impress Russia”.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Worst single terror attacks in history | Links International Journal of Socialist Renewal

 

[Revoltingest]

If I remember correctly the use of the Atomic Bomb was also a show of force to the Russians, we need not kid ourselves that the use was purely humane or benign.

I've not seen anyone claim that, so no kidding is involved.
The issue:
Win the war quickly & decisively.
It served that purpose.

 

[YmirGF]

Nuclear scientist Leo Szilard recounted to his biographers how Truman's secretary of state, James Byrnes, told him before the Hiroshima attack that “Russia might be more manageable if impressed by American military might and that a demonstration of the bomb may impress Russia”.

And it did impress the Russians - enough to develop their own nuclear program. Go figure.

 

[Revoltingest]

And it did impress the Russians - enough to develop their own nuclear program. Go figure.

All advantages are inevitably temporary anyway.

 

[Bismillah]

I've not seen anyone claim that, so no kidding is involved.

Well I remember being taught that in advanced history class in high school so go figure XD

The issue:
Win the war quickly & decisively.
It served that purpose.

I believe it was more nuanced than that, the war itself was already won though I do agree it was a question of speed. If I remember correctly the Ruskies themselves were about to claim Japan racing towards Manchuria, but regardless I have links nana

 

[no-body]

Probably not a war crime but to celebrate such an atrocity seems despicable.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well I remember being taught that in advanced history class in high school so go figure XD
I believe it was more nuanced than that, the war itself was already won though I do agree it was a question of speed. If I remember correctly the Ruskies themselves were about to claim Japan racing towards Manchuria, but regardless I have links nana

Won? Japan still had several million soldiers & several tens of millions of additional civil defense types.
Given their intention to fight to the death, nuking them to avoid extensive conventional war was reasonable.

 

[Bismillah]

Won? Japan still had several million soldiers & several tens of millions of additional civil defense types.

They were pretty helpless during the firebombing raids of Tokyo and Kyoto for example. They had little to none military infrastructure left and I cited proof that the Chief of Staff and Eisenhower did not consider the bomb necessary, along with proof that the bomb was used as a demonstration to Russia. That doesn't impact your perspective on the reasons why Hiroshima and Nagasaki may have been bombed?

 

[Revoltingest]

They were pretty helpless during the firebombing raids of Tokyo and Kyoto for example. They had little to none military infrastructure left and I cited proof that the Chief of Staff and Eisenhower did not consider the bomb necessary, along with proof that the bomb was used as a demonstration to Russia. That doesn't impact your perspective on the reasons why Hiroshima and Nagasaki may have been bombed?

That there was debate about whether or not to drop the bomb is to be expected, so I don't see that as making the decision to bomb unreasonable.
Lack of military infrastructure wasn't the issue. Rather, it was the number of armed soldiers & civil defense types who planned to fight to the death
with guns & spears than surrender. There were millions of them. That would've meant massive casualties on both sides, particularly the Japanese.
The bombs avoided that conflict by inducing surrender.

Note...I don't argue that it was the right decision...only that it was reasonable & not a war crime.

 

[cablescavenger]

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

Unfortunately it appears Gobbels may not have said it, propaganda eh? it gets everywhere.

 

[outhouse]

Was it necessary to drop TWO bombs?

Absoluteley

 

[outhouse]

what part of we were at war!


do people not understand and the japaneese had not surrendered nor were they going to. ?


You dont let pimples like that fester, the japanees were cruel and ruthless and asked for it and recieved it. end of story.

 

[sandandfoam]

You dont let pimples like that fester, the japanees were cruel and ruthless and asked for it and recieved it. end of story.

That the Japanese were cruel and ruthless seems a strange argument for justifying cruel and ruthless behaviour against their civilian population.

 

[sandandfoam]

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?

"the wanton destruction of cities, towns and villages, and any devastation not justified by military, or civilian necessity" is a war crime [Gary D. Solish (2010) The Law of Armed Conflict: International Humanitarian Law in War, Cambridge University Press ISBN 9780521870887 pp. 301-303 ]

 

[outhouse]

That the Japanese were cruel and ruthless seems a strange argument for justifying cruel and ruthless behaviour against their civilian population.

We were at war and they had no regard for anyones civilian popuation.

regardless its tragic what happened but it was for the best.


Fact is it is their japaneese gov that put their peoples lives in harms way.


There lucky ,,,, like thank their stars, they finally decided to surrender

 

[outhouse]

the wanton destruction of cities, towns and villages, and any devastation not justified by military, or civilian necessity" is a war crime

sorry my friend, this was justified



One point we should make is no one ever suggested the USA gov or the crew should ever be put up for charges when this all happened.

I have no idea where these bleeding hearts come from now

 

[sandandfoam]

sorry my friend, this was justified

I'm not convinced

One point we should make is no one ever suggested the USA gov or the crew should ever be put up for charges when this all happened.

I don't think that matters. Did anyone suggest the USSR should be put up for charges after the rape of Berlin?

I have no idea where these bleeding hearts come from now

'Bleeding hearts' are a good thing. Our world is becoming progressively less violent - I think that has more to do with bleeding hearts than warriors.

 

[no-body]

sorry my friend, this was justified

They could have dropped the bomb on military targets to show off it's power instead of defenseless civilians.

America has it's own share of vicious atrocities to account for the internment of japanese-americans, the tuskegee syphyllis experiments, etc.

Things are never that black and white.

 

[outhouse]

They could have dropped the bomb on military targets to show off it's power instead of defenseless civilians.

we had been doing this the whole war without intention of surrender.

You dont understand the history here.

It took something that massive or they would have fought to the last man, the fact we didnt kill them all was a gift