Chinese women in cheap kimono

You offer up the same old lies and propaganda. Also, the fact that the bombings spared your father from invading Japan (whether such an invasion was even necessary) is immaterial from a moral perspective. A war crime is a war crime, regardless of who benefits.

Japan issued a formal declaration of war (after a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor). It did so as the legal authority over the Japanese people.

Yes, Japan was the aggressor. Yes, Japan was in the wrong. This DOES NOT justify war crimes in retaliation. The Germans often burned villages or killed civilians as retribution for attacks on its troops. The people responsible for these acts were later tried and executed for war crimes. War itself does NOT allow one side to do whatever it wants.

Japan demonstrated its callous disregard for civilians throughout Asia during the years it occupied other countries; Nanking, The Philippines and others. It used terror tactics against civilian targets as a measured form of warfare.

All true, all despicable acts.

Nevertheless, these facts DO NOT justify war crimes in retaliation. Case in point, US Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara told the story about a discussion he had with General Curtis LeMay when the order was given to drop the bombs. He said, "[LeMay said] 'If we'd lost the war, we'd all have been prosecuted as war criminals.' And I think he's right. He, and I'd, say we were behaving as war criminals. LeMay recognized that what he was doing would be thought immoral if his side had lost. But what makes it immoral if you lose and not immoral if you win?" The top brass of the US Army itself KNEW that they were committing war crimes! They did it anyway because they knew they would win and get away with it.

During the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal, Judge Radha Binod Pal of India refused to classify Japanese crimes as unique, insisting that the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the CLEAREST examples of war crimes during the war, and that failure to prosecute US officials showed the Tribunal had no moral authority.

Ironically, you point out that the Japanese often used terror against civilians throughout Asia. Do you want to guess what happened to the people caught responsible for such acts? THEY WERE CONVICTED OF WAR CRIMES AND, IN MANY CASES, EXECUTED.

One, it demoralized the Japanese populace, which stratagists estimated would have effectively killed one million American troops in an invasion. The Japanese people were sworn to take up arms against an invasion so this was a reasonable and likely accurate estimate.

One million American troops...

A widely repeated number. Where does it come from? How accurate an assessment is it? Let's see.

The Joint War Plans Committee, in its initial assessment, put the number of expected casualties at roughly 250,000. TRUMAN'S OWN STAFF LATER ADDED 'up to 1 million' to make the document match off-hand remarks previously made by Truman. Later, the Joint War Plans Committee estimated the number at 40,000 based on the effectiveness of the naval blockade of Japan. THIS IS THE NUMBER THE US MILITARY WAS BASING IT'S DECISION ON AT THE TIME OF THE BOMBING. The 'one million US troops' number is pure propaganda, nothing more.

Regardless, General Eisenhower, Fleet Admiral Nimitz and Fleet Admiral Leahy ALL felt the bombings were COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY for saving US lives:

Dwight D. Eisenhower wrote in his memoir The White House Years:

"In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives."

Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet:

"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan."

Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman:

"The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons..."

Even General MacArthur disagreed with the necessity of the atomic bombings!

JAPAN HAD ALREADY OFFERED TO SURRENDER WITH ONE CONDITION; THAT THE EMPEROR BE ALLOWED TO REMAIN ON THE THROWN. THE US REJECTED THIS, BOMBED JAPAN, THEN ALLOWED THE EMPEROR TO REMAIN ON THE THROWN! NO US INVASION WAS EVER NECESSARY!

It was not a terrorist attack. No attack against an enemy that attacked you without a declaration of war, but then declared it after the attack, can be rightfully called terrorist.

Your naive definition aside, it definitely WAS a terrorist attack. Under the most simple and neutral definition, terrorism is "the targeting of innocents to achieve a political goal". Hiroshima is a CLASSIC example of this. The fact that it happened in war does not justify it; many Germans and Japanese were hanged for committing "acts of terror" during the war. They argued war justified such acts; their arguments were rejected and they were executed. The fact that US officials (including President Truman) avoided such consequences is NOT proof of their guiltlessness; it's just proof of victor's justice.

You are free to interpret history as you will; to judge it and to condemn it. But you are not free to make up your own facts.

I have presented FACTS in support of my arguments; you have presented NONE AT ALL. Only regurgitated propaganda and a flimsy emotional appeal that it helped out your father. I'm glad your father survived the war, but that's merely a rationalization on your part. The bombings were still war crimes and acts of state-terror.

reply share

add reply

formatting help