Warcrimes are only put to people who have lost a war, have you ever noticed that?
Bullshit. At first, yes, but we now know about many Allied warcrimes.
Docm is right - The allies were not going to let Japan off, and that would have resulted in a bloodbath. As much as the nuclear bomb was terrible, it saved both Allied and Japanese lives.
Killing civilians which IS a warcrime to hypothetically "Save millions" is not a rational decision at all .. it IS a warcrime no matter how you look at it. A simple Airaid upon industrial town areas would of sufficed the lack of airforce for the japenese was the clincher. The surrender would of been instantanious if the Bombs were the clincher for the victory but they didn't the surrender came a whole month later, not as if it could not of been given before hand.
The surrender came of fear of futher detriment to the country of Japan, not necessarily because of the bombs, afterall it would of been a while before another operation could of happened and the Japenese probably knew this with the long time deliberating the decision to surrender.
Costing lives to save "in Theory" lives does not make it a tactical choice nor necessary to victory ... for example why not just nuke the middle east? in theory you could save "Billions" of lives all over the world for the cost of a few million ... because it is not rational, for the cost of 240,000 lives ... 0 were actually saved as a direct cause of the event. but "millions" were saved in hypothetically ... well you could say that the execution of 64 canadian soldiers in Normandy by SS troops hypotheically saved hundreds of thousands of German civilians.
No matter how you look at it 240,000 helpless civilians and troops lost their lives because of a "Live test" and hypotheical threats that never existed.
There needed to be no invasion of Japan at all anyway, that was the point being made, the Japenese could not invade from Japan anymore in their current state. It came down to the American and allied forces Generals wishes to end the war swiftly (As was later to backfire in Korea just 10 years later when the Chinese jumped in).
You'll find that pretty much all Allied war crimes even noted "No prosectution". Feel free to contridict me with a Warcrime commited by the Allies in WWII where a prosecution followed. There are pllenty of Cases ... no prosecutions nor re-opened cases ... unless of course your German.
I'm done with you, Kator Viridian. You're getting into conspiracy theory territory with this live test crap.
I will say this, though. You are right about the Japanese not being able to counter-attack, They couldn't have and I never said they intended to. They intended to fight a defensive ground-war on the mainland, where there were not only hundreds of thousands of soldiers still stationed, but over 30 million armed civilians each of whom swore an oath to fight to the death before surrendering any Japanese soil.
The Japanese government had itself sworn never to surrender while they were still capable of fighting. The Emperor may have wished to surrender, but he was a puppet that was silenced by the real government. The Japanese had unquestionably intended to draw the war out as long as possible, just as the Germans had done.
But of course, you know better than about 10 different (and top-secret, thus useless for propaganda) studies done by the Allied high-command, all of which estimated millions of deaths. You know the real history, not the rubbish written by the victors.
Japan was a floating siege works, there was no-way in or out by sea thanks to intensive mine laying...
You know that's my point, right? that the invasion of mainland Japan (if necessary, and it certainly was without the atomic bombings) was going to be an absolute bloodbath, but it was inevitable without the atomic bombs.
Do bear in mind that the Japanese had no idea the atomic bombs existed before the actual bombings. That shit was as top-secret as anything ever has been.
Yep those studies won't be biased at all honestly. Not written by the Victors but ... you just ... oh nvm
If you were done dude that would of been your end line, but it just wasn't to be. Why keep arguing? why keep just reading opinonated bits of history?
Lets take a bit of construded history a totally hypothetical bit of blah that will never exist. The attacks on the Norwegian heavy water plants failed, the Germans were the first to create the nuclear bomb and their first attack is upon Britain, landing bombs upon Liverpool and Manchester, 2 heavy industrial and heavily populated areas. Britain surrenders 1 month later ... War crime or not?
Now there is also something to bare in mind, swearing an oath to defend your homeland or not does not mean you are now a soldier, any person would say "Yes i'd defend my home just give me a weapon". The French did it in WWII, the Chinese did it, the Russians did it ... does it mean their civilian deaths are okay? I mean they took up arms too, women, children the whole shebang ... but because it was the Americans doing the killing it is suddenly okay because of an "Oath" ... pull the other one.
But the funny thing is all Americans who are citizens are currently sworn under an oath to take up arms against any invader, would that mean nuclear bombs would be justifiable at any time?
Its a bit of mind bending really .. what do you see as good and bad? humanitarian and unhumanitarian? Evil and Just? It still is all decided by the victors.
