Genocide or normal act of war

Malaqai,
If the US wanted to commit genocide, then why stop at Nagasaki? We could have bombed the entire country into the stone age, landed troops and killed everyone who was still there.
That would be genocide.
What happened was war.

Read what Ragusa said. An atomic bomb is just another weapon. Why does it's use signify genocide?

 

The geneva convention was in place in 1949, but using it as a guide for today, would the same act today be viewed as a war-crime or an act or conventional war.

The nuke is a weapon that can kill so many in so short a time. And it isn't just another weapon. Because if it were, the US and Russia wouldn't be spending millions on disarmament.

I just want to know if you think that killing civilians can ever be justified? In example...to stop an enemy army you have to incinerate an entire city with a nuke. The city has 100 000 people in it. What would you do? Genocide or normal act of war? Or, simply pu, a war crime?

[ May 02, 2003, 19:03: Message edited by: Malaqai ]

 

Jack Funk,
you make a mistake when equalling genocide with annihilation. Determined and intentional mass murder on an ethnic/ national/ religious group is sufficient already.
The US aren't accused of having wanted to wipe out the japanese or germans in WW-II. But you can't deny they have targeted civilians of their respective enemies on large scale. Even the dumbest soldier was very well aware of the effects of dropping hundrets of tons in bombs on a city full of civilians. Dresden, just like Nagasaki, didn't happen by accident. The key point is if the so-called "strategic bombing" of enemy lands, targeting the enemy's civilians, is just that, genocide.

The question is if targeting of civilian centers and indiscriminate bombing of cities, resulting in the death of hundrets of thousands of civilians is something that can be justified with fighting a war against soldiers of an agressor. I think not.

And the point about the nuke can be seen vice versa either: When ordinary city burning is genocide already, then the nuclear version is even more.


BTA,
the Geneva Convention was indeed not in place in WW-II, however, the Hague Convention (18 October 1907) was. A little generous I'll equal a city bombing with use of force in a siege ...

...

The indiscriminate incineration of a city cannot meet these standards. WW-II was incredibly brutalised; all sides commited war crimes, only that the victors didn't trial theirs.

[ May 02, 2003, 20:49: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Tiny minority? Well, you cannot seperate the two nukes from the overall air campaign, claiming that these are just two "minor actions". And the bombing campaigns on japan and germany were planned, systematic and focussed on germans and japanese (= ethnic groups).

The "tiny minority" argument is lagging: Imagine a smaller concentration camp, were maybe "only" some 100.000 jews were killed: That wouldn't have been genocide? Because of insufficient numbers? Hardly.

You must be a cheerful nature to say that some 135.000 peeps in Nagasaki and 64.000 peeps in Hiroshima weren't a major contribution to the overall bodycount - within a couple of hours. Seeing them as isolated acts is glossing over.

The only striking difference to a normal firebomb raid was the bonus radiation, making the death of the victims more gruesome.

Besides, some more highly recommended read:
http://www.dannen.com/decision/int-law.html
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/abomb/mpmenu.htm

[ May 02, 2003, 21:41: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

When you exaggerate the only difference between a city bombing and the concentration camp example is:

The nazis imprisoned people to eventually kill and burn them. That is discriminate killing in a population.

The allies didn't make the the effort to choose people by specific criteria and just burned everyone and everything in a specified area in enemy territory. That is indiscriminate killing in a polulation.

What of both variants is genocide? The first? Or the second variant? Maybe both?

 

Only the first.
Mainly B/C you worded it wrong
"The nazis imprisoned people to eventually kill and burn them. That is discriminate killing in a population."

That is discrimate killing OF a population. The German's intent was to destroy the ENTIRE Jewish population in Europe.

 

I do not agree that the nukes were an attempt at genocide. It was an attempt to bring a fast close to WWII, and to spare the lives of as many American soldiers as Truman could save. The Japanese had sworn to fight until the bitter end and the allies were trying to avoid having to invade the main islands of Japan.

There really was a true attempt at genocide by the US government. That is what happened to the American Indians living here. That really was genocide by any defintion. It is tragic that it is so ignored, or forgotten by not only the US government but also the world community.

 

Hiroshima and Nagasaki was just the culmination of the US/UK mass terror bombing strategy during WW2.

IMO these british and american bombings constitute a horrible crime against humanity, in some ways comparable to the crimes committed by Germany and the Soviet Union during that war.
WW2 was not a war between the "Good Guys" and the "Bad Guys", it was a war between the "Bad Guys" and the "Not-quite-as-Bad Guys".

The Destruction of Hamburg, July 24/25th. 1943
60% of its cityscape was completely gone, death count of about 50,000.

The Dresden bombing attacks of 14-15 February 1945
Dresden was a center of cultural and architectural wonders, including the famous Zwinger Museum and Palace and the cathedral, the Frauenkirche. There were no military objectives of any consequence in the city--its destruction could do nothing to weaken the Nazi war machine. U.S. and British air warfare had left Dresden intact until that point.

The weather was clear and there was no resistance from German fighter planes or anti-aircraft guns.

Early official Allied post-strike reports estimated that 85 per cent of the fully built-up city area was destroyed, that the old part of the city, which comprised the greater portion of the built-up areas was largely wiped out.

Low-flying planes machine-gunned the fleeing population along the banks of the Elbe river. A fourth attack on Dresden concentrated its bomb load on the roads used by the fleeing population.

About 1 million people lived in Dresden at the time, it's impossible to say exactly how many were killed, but estimates range between 35,000 and 135,000.
(The low estimate was made by the regime that was installed by the Soviets after they took Dresden and is not likely to be anywhere near correct.)


Tokyo the night of February 23-24
Around 16 square miles of the city were destroyed and over 100,000 people are estimated to have died.

Thinking about these bombings make my heart ache.


Mystra's Chosen wrote:

That is an utterly stupid statement. I sincerely hope you meant something else than what you actually wrote.

It might, or it might not, be considered genocide, but who started a war first has absolutely no relevance for that question.

Definition of Genocide
- Merriam-Webster:
the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group.
- Cambridge:
the murder of a whole group of people, especially a whole nation, race or religious group.
- yourDictionary.com:
The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group.

I do not consider the allied bombings to be genocide. I do consider the attempt to imprison and kill the jews to be an attempt at genocide.
Just because we can't label the bombings as genocide does not mean that they aren't horrible crimes.

In common for both is that they were deliberate mass murder of civilians.

[ May 03, 2003, 12:05: Message edited by: Earl Grey ]

 

On tv I saw an interview with a british bomber pilot who told he lost his trust in the allied targeting practices when he was briefed like that: "Last week be targeted the cities of A and B. Today we're poing to bomb city C where the majority of the refugees from A and B went to. As you can see on these aerial photographs these are the refugee treks ..."

I remember how pissed I was when I was in London and found a statue for national hero "Bomber Harris", the man who ordered and roganised mass murder of german civilians. Not really surprising that Goering when he was sentenced by the Nuremberg Trinbuan only was generally accused of having " ... commanded the Luftwaffe in the attack on Poland and throughout the aggressive wars which followed ...". Had they accused him of ordering the (comparately limited) terror bombing on england, netherlands and poland either they might have had to explain something unpleasant.

 

No, it is not. It would be just stupid to say anything.

 

War is never easy, and the decisions that have to be made are brutal. My understanding of the situation has always been this: The Americans were in a war they knew would take years to finish off. They couldn't just walk away and leave the Japanese alone, as the Japanese had proved they were willing to strike American targets. The projections came in that it would cost thousands of lives, both American and Japanese, to finally defeat Japan, a country with a mindset far removed from the American.

With me? OK, so faced with the possibility of huge American casualties, the Americans decided to try and end the war with a single (or pair of) stroke(s). It is the responsibility of leaders to think about their own men first, and then the enemies -- I know that it is not considered PC, but EVERY country thinks of her own soldiers before the enemy, and expecting them to do otherwise is foolish. So they dropped the Bombs. Since no one knows how many lives, both Japanese and American, that would have been lost, we cannot really second guess the people who made this decision -- I mean, lets say "X" people died in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. Had the war been toughed out conventionally, and "x+100,000" people had died, then in hindsight someone today would have been berating the Americans for doing it conventionally and theorizing about the benefits of having used a nuke.

In other words, the leaders at the time made a decision, based on the best information available. They thought they were going to save not only the lives of their own soldiers, but also the lives of Japanese, in the long run. Maybe they were wrong, who knows? Maybe conventionally the war would have cost "x-100,000" lives.

20/20 hindsight is so easy, but it also has no bearing on the reality of the situation faced by the real people, who faced real consequences and real time limits.

 

Yago -- What? The destruction of the indian tribes, an entire continent of people, was systematic and certainly on a larger scale than anything Hitler did. Maybe I am not understanding you.

 

At Chandos the Red: No, misunderstanding.

I agree with all you said. It would be just foolish for me to comment.

But the vanishing of two high developed cultures like the Incas and the Actecs is one of the most infamous incidients in History. And the way the Spaniards "replaced" the dying indians in their colonies through Africans.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/wwtwo/japan/no_surrender_01.shtml

I just want to mention. The Americans offered the Emperor a deal. If he would work together with the Americans, they would let him an the traditional Empire be. The nuclear bombs helped the emperor to decide. The American gained an important ally in the Emperor. Japan is a very traditional society and the support of the Emperor was a key factor for the American occupation. The Japanese were ordered by the Emperor, not to resist the Americans and to cooperate with them.

If the USA at this time didn't have the bomb, they would have made a peace treaty with Japan, without occupying it. As Depaara pointed in his post out, to conquer mainland Japan with "conventional" means was beyond the military capability of the Americans. Blackmailing them with Blitz and offering them a treaty with possibilites for both sides just made more sense.

A mix between criminal bombing and smart diplomacy.

[ May 03, 2003, 17:53: Message edited by: Yago ]

 

Sorry, Yago, I am actually awake now (should have had coffe first before thinking). To draw comparisons on genocides was just plain silly on my part.

Earl Grey -- The fire bombing of Dresden was an act of revenge and proves that the allies were not beneath acts of terror. But IMO the nukes used on Japan are not in that category, although you are right, the end results were the same.

 

Maybe my last post was a bit overkill, it really depends on why you are fighting the war in the first place.

Not necessarily, it depends on the mindset of your soldiers, I doubt the nazi soldiers were much bothered by the saughter of the impure monsters.

And in case I have not mentioned this before, it was'nt genocide as the bombs were not launched with the intention of killing the entire Japanese "race".

 

Chandos the red wrote:

It was? Revenge for what?

On the 25th August 1940 the Germans attacked a oil depot at Thameshaven; one aircraft got lost, continued west and dropped it's bombs on the City of London. This angered the War Cabinet and that night 80 bombers bombed Berlin in reprisal.
Perhaps this is what you were thinking of?

 

All i want to say is the phrase someone famous guy (i can't remember the name): the history is always written by the winners . So it's not suprising that the war crimes that were commited by the allies have never been brought to justice or even worse have been transformed to heroic acts
The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagashaki was made not so much for a quicker closure of the war but mainly for experimentation because they knew the destructive power of the nuclear bombs only theoretically and not practically.
Now for the genocide of the native american populations it has never been officialy accepted but hey these people were nearly extincted from the Spanish and the English with a pretty systematic effort and this continues to our days especially for the american indians. (concentration camps sorry i meant encampments isolation)