Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentMilitary · 8 years ago

Was hiroshima & Nagasaki a war crime?

Do you think Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a war crime?

because the US dropped the bombs on civilian cities and killed thousands of civilians and it still effects people now with deformed children and the people who were effected by cancer by the radiation.

Also i was thinking if Japan dropped A bombs on say new york and Washington (i know they probably couldn't because of the planes and stuff) but say they did the US would have considered it unexceptionable and would have kicked up hell about it and would have considered it a war crime.

I know that if they didn't drop the bomb WW2 would of lasted a lot longer but really there was no need to attack 2 cities with a deadly bomb that you don't no much about (the after effects).

So do you agree or do you think it was necessary?

15 Answers

  • 8 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    Japan at that time was saying that if America would only agree to retaining the Tenno system, they would surrender.

    President Truman knew that Japanese were considering surrender with the Soviet's intervention.

    The war was close to the end at that point.

    But he decided to use the atomic bomb.

    There were three reasons for that.

    First, they wanted to show the strength of America to the communist Soviet Union, their new enemy.

    Second, America spent so much money on the Manhattan project, and they needed to produce a result.

    Third, there was a strong desire in the military that wanted to use the new weapon on a battlefield.

    So, without warning, in the center of the city, away from any military sites, at 8:15 in the morning during rush hour, the bomb was dropped.

    The atomic bombs were of two different types.

    After the war ended, an American military team visited Hiroshima and Nagasaki to see the victims.

    But they were only there to see them and not to cure or treat them.

    This is how three hundred thousand people were killed.

    In fact, there is apparently a view among historians that America dropped an atomic bomb on Nagasaki because it wanted a research sample to compare the effects of two atomic bombs.

    There was a paper that Harvard University devised after the war that says "It was necessary to drop the bomb to save a million American lives."

    This lie is not supported in any document during the war.

    It is easy to forget the Tokyo air raids when compared to the devastation caused by the Atomic bombs.In March of 1945, Tokyo was bombed by more than three hundred B29s. They made a circle of fire around the city so there would be no escape, and then bombarded the city with firebombs. Within a few hours, a hundred thousand people died.

    Why were men rounded up on the battlefield and bombs dropped on towns where only women, children and old people were remaining?

    Wouldn't The Western nations that concord, enslaved and exploited the African and Asian nations for over 300 years be questioned for their torts?

    Japan, officially apologized, has paid their reparations decades ago to all Asian countries Japan attacked. For example, Japan agreed to pay $800 million in reparations to the Philippines in 1956 and the same amount to Indonesia in 1958.The above are some "autonomous" reparations Japan voluntarily paid for its crimes.

    Japan was diligently making war reparations.

    On the other hand, Euro-America has not apologized once.

    They won't even acknowledge the fact that they did commit war crimes.

    We shouldn't view history from the perspective of ideology or propaganda.

    Before the Second Sino-Japanese War started, western countries had many colonies in the world, and westerners had operated an obscurant policy in the colonies. Japan proposed The Racial Equality in Paris Peace Conference in 1919. However, the U.S and British took strong opposition in the conference, so the proposal did not get the approval.

    America colonized the Philippines, France colonized Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, England colonized Malaysia, Singapore and Burma and the Netherlands colonized Indonesia.

    Holland has occupied Indonesia, and France, Indochina for a few hundred years.

    They were driven out of those countries by the Japanese army.

    At the trials held by the Allied Powers after WWII, close to one thousand Japanese people were sentenced to death for "war crimes."

    While these trials were going on, France invaded Indochina.

    Likewise, the Netherlands invaded Indonesia and massacred 800,000 people.

    But the United States backed the invasions of these two countries.

    Perhaps this is an example of "colonial imperialism" by White nations?

    Youtube thumbnail


    Incidentally, United States President Roosevelt knew in advance about the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. The point is America let Japan make a preemptive attack to compile the American public opinion.

    On November 25 Henry L. Stimson, United States Secretary of War noted in his diary that he had discussed with US President Franklin D. Roosevelt the severe likelihood that Japan was about to launch a surprise attack, and that the question had been "how we should maneuver them [the Japanese] into the position of firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves.'"

    On the following day, November 26, 1941, Hull presented the Japanese ambassador with the Hull note. Japanese Prime Minister Tojo Hideki said to his cabinet, "this is an ultimatum."

    Jonathan Daniels, President Roosevelt's administrative assistant at the time, noted Roosevelt's subsequent reaction to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor - "The blow was heavier than he had hoped it would necessarily be. ... But the risks paid off; even the loss was worth the price. ..."

    Many historians think the note was designed to draw Japan into war and thus claim Japan was not the aggressor nation in the Pacific War.

    Source(s): To people that don't understand my opinions Please watch these video. Truth of World War II - What Japan fought for Cumings, Bruce: "Parallax Visions: Making Sense of American-East Asian Relations" Duke 1999 p. 47 "National Affairs: PEARL HARBOR: HENRY STIMSON'S VIEW". Time. April 1, 1946. 1941: Pearl Harbor Sunday: The End of an Era, in "The Aspirin Age - 1919-1941," edited by Isabel Leighton, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1949, page 490. what really happened
  • ?
    Lv 4
    5 years ago

    The actual Hirsoshima and Nagasaki raids where nothing compared to the Fire Raids performed by the Americans on the Japanese homeland. One thing it did not do was shorten the war. The Japs where ready to surrender and had already taken a vote and where just waiting for an Imperial Edict as it was a straight 50/50 divide. Considering that the news of the two cities, it did then cause the Emporer to side with the peace faction, however he would have more than likely gone that way as He knew from his own sources Japan could no longer defend itself any further, the fleet was all but destroyed, the airforce was mauled, the petrol had gone and the citizens had mainly fled from the cities. However considering the three operations the allies had for the rest of 1945 and 1946, the Invasion of the Japanese Homeland would have cost the lives of the majority of the populace and the loss of up to 1 million service personnel. The southern Operation Zimmer was a proven failure when it was carried out (the liberation of Thailand and Malaysia) with poor planning and bad judgement and would not only have cost lives on the British and Commonwealth forces, but also the destruction of numerous POW's. Then there was also the Soviet thrust to think about, which considering the speed of the advance in 1945 from Manchuria against a large force of troops, it would have meant the loss of Korea and Northern Japan more than likely. Truman was already aware of the problems the Soviets where causing in Europe and realized that this also could not be allowed to happen in the Eastern area. So the use of the Atomic wepons, I think was not a war crime, it was a means to an end.

  • 7 years ago

    No, the A-bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not war crimes. The same applied to Japanese and German airmen who were dropping bombs on Allied cities during the war. In fact, there was no international law, treaty, or any other instrument that protected civilian populations from aerial bombardment in World War II. That's why no side were prosecuted at the Nuremberg and Tokyo Trials for this type of practice.

    The only closest that banned air attack on civilians was the 1923 Hague Rules of Air Warfare which governed how aerial warfare should be conducted. However, it was never adopted in a legally binding form and the convention never came into force so there was nothing that prohibited air forces from attacking civilians and civilian properties.

    Yes, the A-bombings saved many more lives in the long run. It is estimated that invading the Japanese home islands would have cost millions of more lives. Japanese civilians were trained with bamboo spears and satchel charges and use them to charge at the invading American troops. The Battle of Okinawa killed 100,000 civilians within two months in a tiny island. The invasion of Japan which is much bigger than Okinawa would have been ten times worse. The A-bombs saved many lives from both sides, American and Japanese. None of American and Japanese kids would have been born had the invasion of Japan happened.

  • Steven
    Lv 5
    8 years ago

    It was indeed necessary,we were facing invasion of the Japanese home islands if Truman had not given the go on the drop.The casualties expected were one million or more for both sides,it was unthinkable to commit our troops to such an undertaking.I believe the decision to use the bombs was correct and not a war crime.There was a mission being planned to drop on Berlin but the Russians were bent on taking the city by force and the Germans capitulated before another bomb could be readied.I pray that the decision to ever drop on another city never presents itself.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Fred
    Lv 6
    8 years ago

    Compared to the campaign island invasion casualties and the mainland firebombing casualties the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki isn't even a statistical factor in a surrender consideration. But it gave the Japanese Military rulers a excuse in that they personally had not endured enough hardships of war or had not given an adequate amount of war effort but had been defeated by a superior development of technology and defeated by no personal fault or shortcoming. In that light, the use of atomic weapons saved millions of their population.

    Source(s): This debate goes on and on but the next time I meet both a firebombing causualty and a thermonuclear causualty I'll ask, "Did it really matter what the form of death was?"
  • 8 years ago

    The only difference between Hiroshima/Nagasaki and a thousand other civilian population centers bombed by all sides during the war is the type of weapon used. The only reason ANYONE gives a **** about these two cities is because atomic weapons were used. These were not even close ot the deadliest raids of the war but because atoms were used instead of TNT or incendiaries somehow it was more evil.

    Yeah, whatever.

    Both were legitimate military targets. Combined those two raids probably saved 3 to 5 MILLION lives since they made a land invasion of Japan unnecessary.

    Nuff said.

  • 8 years ago

    It was a crime that the Japanese government subjected its people to so much misery, destruction, and death. When the bombs were dropped Japan had lost the war. They had been defeated every place in the Pacific, were on the defensive and on the run in China and Russia had finally declared on them. Their cities were being bombed daily (the U.S. bombers being virtually uncontested in the skies) and naval units were shelling the main islands from off-shore. The naval blockade prevented anything from entering or leaving Japan. There was no food, the infrastructure of all the major cities, and many of the lesser cities, was in shambles and yet the government decided to carry on the war. After Potsdam the allies sent a message to the Japanese government to surrender unconditionally or face total destruction; the government declined. Even after the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima the government of Japan was given the choice of surrender; they didn't respond. So yes, it was a crime committed by the Japanese government for creating a situation, never taking into account the almost inhuman conditions the Japanese populace was dealing with, that forced the hand of Truman who wanted to spare as many lives as possible by not having to invade the main islands.

  • 8 years ago

    Saving an estimated 5 million Allied soldiers lives was well worth the use of the bomb.

    Go educate yourself with regards the hundreds of thousands of victims of Imperial Japanese aggression, war crimes, illegal imprisonment, torture, medical experiments, germ warfare experiments POW abuse, etc.. etc.. from 1934 - 1945, then come back and cry me a river for the Japanese population of that period kid.

  • dan h
    Lv 7
    8 years ago

    A few thoughts here.

    1) It was 65 years ago...time to put this one away.

    2) The Japanese government committed an atrocity when they bombed Pearl Harbor in an unprovoked attack, having failed to ensure that their declaration of war had been delivered.

    3) The Japanese military committed numerous war crimes during their reign of terror, including the Rape of Nanking, the bataan death march, summary execution of prisoners of war, and outright murder of civilian non-combatants throughout the pacific.

    5) The Japanese knew that the war was over for them, yet still refused to surrender. They had instructed their civilian population to resist to the last man, woman, and child.

    6) If the bombs had not been dropped, another repo million lives could easily have been lost...the majority of those civilians. Put that number next to those actually lost in the bombings.

    All of that taken together, I have no doubt that the bombings were justified.

  • Anonymous
    8 years ago

    If we would not have dropped the Bomb more civilians would have died. The people of Japan were literally sharpening sticks to repel and invasion. If they would have met Soviet and American Armies in conventional battle on Japan they casualties on the Japanese side could have been over a million. The bombs saved lives on both side.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.