sandandfoam
Veteran Member
I was watching a documentary about Hiroshima last night. I found it very disturbing and it left me wondering - were the crew of the Enola Gay war criminals?
I think they were.
I think they were.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I forget which American general characterized the bombing of Japan -- not just the atomic bombing, but all of it -- as a war crime. Do you remember who it was, by any chance?
Sorry, no. I'd be interested to hear though.
The general was commenting on the illegality of targeting civilians -- which is what the American bombing campaign was doing.
So were the SS. Is 'We were ordered to' a valid excuse in your view?No. They were soldiers.
It's not an "excuse" at all. The following of orders, by definition, is not required to be excused.So were the SS. Is 'We were ordered to' a valid excuse in your view?
I disagree. That excuse didn't work for Nazi and Japenese war criminals why should it hold for American ones?It's not an "excuse" at all. The following of orders, by definition, is not required to be excused.
The crew of the Enola Gay were bombadeers, and they believed in what they were doing: ending the war
This isn't something I'm arguing. You brought it up.I disagree. That excuse didn't work for Nazi and Japenese war criminals why should it hold for American ones?
No. Just an alternate description of what went down.Is your argument that the end justified any means?
Do you have the same view of other events where people are killed e.g. Srebrenica?The crew of the Enola Gay is not to blame for the event. I am. This is how I saw it, when I learned of this horrible historic event at a tender age: I could view the event in kind with the victims, with all the horror and pain of death; or I could view the event in kind with the crew, with all the horror and awe of death. It was an act of humanity against humanity. They are humanity, and I am humanity. This is what I do.
It seems too black & white to say that something was or wasn't a war crime.I was watching a documentary about Hiroshima last night. I found it very disturbing and it left me wondering - were the crew of the Enola Gay war criminals?
I think they were.
I will continue to do it, until something fundamental in me changes.Do you have the same view of other events where people are killed e.g. Srebrenica?
Should we have continued killing them in comparable numbers by conventional means?
No fallacy. I don't equate them at all.the fallacy here is equating soldiers with civilians. it's not just a numbers game...
You also need to take into account that in one method, not only would enormously large amounts of Japanese been killed, but American soldiers as well. This was the dilemma the commanders faced, use nukes and possibly end the war with no more American casualties, or continue a conventional war and lose many more American lives.No fallacy. I don't equate them at all.
My point is that the likely alternatives would both involve killing both in great numbers.
My question is about which method should have been used.