PEACE

[tocaff]

I know that this is an off topic deal but please bear with me on it. Recently there have been a number of disagreements between members, myself included. I'd like to take this opportunity to call on all of those people to remember that this is all about a game. We also need to remember that we come from different backrounds and as a result have been taught a different history in schools and life. Ike99. for example, is from Argentina, a country that had ties to the Axis powers (Germany) during WW2 whereas most of us are from countries that were on the other side of the fence. I don't want you to think which was right or wrong, just to respect the other people here on the forum. Respect means thinking before comments intended to offend are made. I was taught as a child that if I have nothing nice to say to be quiet. Maybe we should reflect on that. It doesn't mean that we can't disagree, which is healthy, but let's remember it's a game. Real people are sitting at the keyboards and they deserve a degree of respect. So let's try to be adults and moderate ourselves rather than require the mods to do it for us.

Thanks for your time. Peace

[Ike99]

Respect also means treating all in a simiiar fasion and holding all to the same standards.

You, I , and everyone else knows if the Axis powers had dropped atomic bombs on Allied cities in WW2 those who did this would have been convicted as war criminals and it would be held up today as one of the worst, if not the worst act of criminality in warfare.

We all know this.

And when I used the word ¨your¨ Tocaff, that was not directed at ¨you¨ personally but at the Allied powers. I find it hard to beieve you were an Allied commander or was planning an invasion of Japan in 1945. I think this is clear but maybe that sounds wrong or something.

I also remind Tankerace of the fact those who were responcible for the Batan Death March were tried, convicted and sentenced as war criminals. Those who were responcible for the mass murder of 150,000 civilians at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not.

And when I say this I do not disrespect or pass judgement on the Allied soldiers themselves. Soldiers follow the orders they are given. I´ve seen a number of documentaries where B29 pilots have stated when they firebombed Tokyo the smell of burning flesh was so strong it could be smelled from the altitude.

They went on to say they struggled with this the rest of their lives and spoke to priest and clergy many times as to if they did the right thing.

The Allied commanders, and you can go down the list from McArthur on down were almost to a man opposed to dropping the bombs. Even Curtis Lemay the man who could bomb a hospital ship right after bombing a kindergarden without a blink of the eye stated it wasn´t necessary.

The decision and responcibility for this act rest on Truman. He made the decision and it was a bad one.

[HansBolter]

Yes, Ike you are correct. Lump the fire bombing of Dresden and many, many Japanese cities in there along with the atmoic bomb "crimes".

What some of the rest of us do deplore though is your seeming refusal to accept that the excesses comitted by the allies were the result of having been dragged into war by the agressors while the excesses of the aggressors were wanton, willful and malicious. This is a difference you seem blind to.

[tocaff]

Let's not go there as it was my intention in this thread to douse the fires, not keep them going.  I don't care who did what to who and was it justified or not.  I want a peace here and now on our forum.  ENOUGH!

[Ike99]

What some of the rest of us do deplore though is your seeming refusal to accept that the excesses comitted by the allies were the result of having been dragged into war by the agressors while the excesses of the aggressors were wanton, willful and malicious. This is a difference you seem blind to.

I am not blind to it. The intentional act of bombing civilians is a crime no matter what parties commit the act. You cannot justify the bombing of civilians by saying ¨they did it first...war is war¨

You cannot place a moral and legal standard on one side while not following and being held accountable to the same legal and moral standard yourselves.

There is no such article in the laws of war that existed then or now thats says if side ¨A¨ bombs side ¨B¨s civilians then side ¨B¨ has the legal right to bomb side ¨A¨s civilians.

Now you may not like this, I may not like this and everyone else may not like this and they can lock threads up all they want, BUT, it does not change the fact the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were open and shut war crimes.

They were crimes under international law then and they certainly are crimes under International law now. They will go down in history as such.


CONVENTION WITH RESPECT TO THE LAWS AND CUSTOMS OF WAR ON LAND

The Hague, July 29, 1899

ARTICLE XXV

The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited.

RULES OF AERIAL WARFARE
The Hague, February 1923

ARTICLE XXII

Aerial bombardment for the purpose of terrorizing the civilian population, of destroying or damaging private property not of military character, or of injuring non-combatants is prohibited.

PROTECTION OF CIVILIAN POPULATIONS AGAINST BOMBING FROM THE AIR IN CASE OF WAR.

Unanimous resolution of the League of Nations Assembly,
September 30, 1938.

1) The intentional bombing of civilian populations is illegal;

3) Any attack on legitimate military objectives must be carried out in such a way that civilian populations in the neighbourhood are not bombed through negligence;

[AcePylut]

Ike that's just BS. IF the old guy was still alive, I'd have you talk to him... he who was a former employee of my dad... he who was int he Bataan death march... he who spent the war as a Jap POW. "on down to a man" pretty much stops right as you start talking to the guys doing the actual fighting and dying. The grunt that trudged across Tarawa, Phillipines, Iwo Jima... none of them have any qualms about the bomb. They were overjoyed that we found a way to end the war without them dying. And as long as Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden, etc. save ONE alliied life, then the attacks were justified. Better that 100,000 enemy die that ONE allied life. That's war. If the Germans and Japs didn't like it, then they should have ended the war. Dropping the bomb on Japan? Best decision ever made.

Sorry Tocaff, but what is totally ridiculous is this whole revisionist history that's been building up over a large number of years about the Bomb. It must be corrected everytime it appears. I'm sick and tired of seeing people "discuss" the bomb and try to apply a 2008 "post nuclear winter scare post MAD" point of view, and not a 1945 point of view.

Fact is, we had a weapon that could end the war. We used it. It ended the War. Read the Emperor's own words when he decided to commit the ultimate crime - surrender. Nothing else that people try to argue - like a USSR invasion, that Japan would surrender due to it being starved (yeah that worked well in all the outposts that were bypassed. LOL), and so on, are accurate. It was the bomb, and the bomb alone, that stopped the war.

[HansBolter]

Exactly what part of the difference between one "crminal" act being comitted out of a sadistic wanton desire for dominatioon and another being comitted out of an agonizing choice to find a way to shock an irrational enemy into finally quitting a lost fight in order to limit casulaties on BOTH sides do you persistently fail to grasp here Ike?

While many historians have taken exception with the estimated one million American casulaties the invasion planners expected, most reasonable people recognize that the actual number would have been ghastly. That says nothing of the expected 5-7 MILLION Japanese who would have been sent to meet their ancestors. The bombs SAVED MILLIONS of lives on BOTH sides.

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: Ike99

What some of the rest of us do deplore though is your seeming refusal to accept that the excesses comitted by the allies were the result of having been dragged into war by the agressors while the excesses of the aggressors were wanton, willful and malicious. This is a difference you seem blind to.

I am not blind to it. The intentional act of bombing civilians is a crime no matter what parties commit the act. You cannot justify the bombing of civilians by saying ¨they did it first...war is war¨

You cannot place a moral and legal standard on one side while not following and being held accountable to the same legal and moral standard yourselves.

There is no such article in the laws of war that existed then or now thats says if side ¨A¨ bombs side ¨B¨s civilians then side ¨B¨ has the legal right to bomb side ¨A¨s civilians.

Now you may not like this, I may not like this and everyone else may not like this and they can lock threads up all they want, BUT, it does not change the fact the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were open and shut war crimes.

They were crimes under international law then and they certainly are crimes under International law now. They will go down in history as such.


CONVENTION WITH RESPECT TO THE LAWS AND CUSTOMS OF WAR ON LAND

The Hague, July 29, 1899

ARTICLE XXV

The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited.

RULES OF AERIAL WARFARE
The Hague, February 1923

ARTICLE XXII

Aerial bombardment for the purpose of terrorizing the civilian population, of destroying or damaging private property not of military character, or of injuring non-combatants is prohibited.

PROTECTION OF CIVILIAN POPULATIONS AGAINST BOMBING FROM THE AIR IN CASE OF WAR.

Unanimous resolution of the League of Nations Assembly,
September 30, 1938.

1) The intentional bombing of civilian populations is illegal;

3) Any attack on legitimate military objectives must be carried out in such a way that civilian populations in the neighbourhood are not bombed through negligence;

@Ike,

You do realize that before the U.S. was even at war, the Japanese were systematically violating every tenet of that agreement, correct? They did so with utter abandon and considerable glee on the part of the perps, or are you unstudied in these matters?

As for Japanese attempts at negotiating an end to hostilities, these were nothing more than the continuation of the war by other means. The militarists who controlled the government were as committed to dominating East Asia in August of 1945 as they were when they invaded Manchuria. THATS A VERY WELL DOCUMENTED FACT.

For that matter, the Axis powers, notably Germany and Japan, had so undermined the rule of international law with their actions in Russia and China as to render the whole concept sorta moot. International law became irrelevant because key actors chose to simply ignore every norm of civilized behavior upon which it was based.

That the Western Allies and Soviets attempted to reinstate international law by drawing on the precedents of the pre-war conventions is something of a legal stretch, but that's the route that they chose pursue in their efforts to stitch back together an international community.

Put another way, the Allied powers couldn't violate international law because the Axis powers had obliterated the concepts that underpinned it before the Allies had a chance to sneeze. That's the reality, post-war kangeroo-courts, notwithstanding.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

[tocaff]

Before any posts anything else please read my initial post when I started this thread.  This was not meant to provide an avenue to continue what was shut down in another thread.  Please give this whole thing a rest and go play the game!

[Tankerace]

Ok Ike, drop it and this time I mean it. This thread is not avenue to continue a locked thread. If you do NOT cease posting about the Atomic bombs and war criminals, I will lock this thread and report you to the higher ups.
 
Maybe the bombing was wrong. Or maybe it saved lives, considering how many more civilians would have died in Operation Olympic. The Japanese will always think it was wrong, most Americans that it was right. When I hear you screaming about Japanese war crimes, such as murdering my relative in a prison camp, torturing and killing more Chinese civilians in Shanghai and Nanking than Japanese that were killed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, then maybe we will listen. But that is for another forum. This forum is for discussing WW2 and games, NOT politics or war criminals.
 
Drop it, and I mean RIGHT NOW.

[PizzaMan]

Just passing through...carry on...

Oh, "war is hell."

[edit] Let's have a group hug. History can't be undone, and will always be open to debate. What matters now, is that we focus on idiots who blow up civilians in the name of religion.

[borner]

I am not saying anything about anyone, but I do want to commend Tocaff's effort.  This is a  hobby/diversion for most of us. Discussions, friendly banter between players, and even disagreements are normal. In the end though, we all need to remember it is just a game

[Ike99]

Tankerace, you say this forum is for dicscussing WW2 and games. The dropping of the atomic bombs is a part of WW2.

There is no profanity being hurled back and forth on this thread. No one is insulting anyone else on this thread. Not a single forum rule is being violated on this thread. Debate the issue and not the person I´ve seen you Mods say. Is that not what is happening on this thread??

You will report me to the higher ups? For what, what will you say? I posted the Laws of War concerning aerial warfare from the Hague and made a copyright infringement?

It is a grand stretch to say the discussion of an almost 70 year old event involving President Truman and Emporer Hirohito is discussing politics is it not?

In the previous thread you said yourself...carry on with the discussion just no 9/11 references and no personal attacks.

Tankerace-Continue discussing it if you wish...

I explained myself to Tocaff when I used the word ¨your¨ I was referring to the Allied powers and not him. For me it seems obvious what I meant. Your side, your guys, your soldiers, your leaders. I never said ¨You¨

No sir. The best you can say is your side (not ¨you¨) is coming down on the losing end, legally and morally of how that war ended and you don´t like it.

That is a blatant double standard. Say the Japs got what they deserved, fine. Say the Allies broke the law, watch out. Say the Japs killed Chinese civillians in Shanghai, fine. Say US Marines killed some surrendered Japanese soldiers on Iwo Jima, we have a problem. Say the bombing of Hiroshima was justifiable, fine. Say it wasn´t, ¨revisionist¨
garbage and we have to put a stop to it...

¨RIGHT NOW.¨

Well here are some other ¨revisionist¨ for you...

General Douglas MacArthur
Admiral Chester W. Nimitz
Admiral William D. Leahy
President Dwight Eisenhower
General Carl Spaatz
General Carter Clarke
Admiral Ernest King
Undersecretary of the Navy Ralph A. Bard
General Curtis LeMay
Scientist Albert Einstein
Scientist Leo Szilard
President Herbert Hoover
Assistant Sec. of War John McCloy
Assistant to the Sec. of the Navy Lewis Strauss
Chairman, U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey Paul Nitze
Military Intelligence (Operation MAGIC) General Carter Clarke

Good thing they´re not members of these forums eh?

"Aha, now who are the war criminals?" Herman Goering commenting on the bombing of Hiroshima.

Funny, I think he´d fit right in here.

Do what you want.

[RGIJN]

Hey folks,

I cannot understand why you are heating up that much here! Of course this is a very intricate issue to discuss about. And since I am from germany I really have my very own personal point of view to this, generally. But I think this forum isn´t meant at all for guys trying to impose her own ultimate opinion on others. Every human beeing is free to have an own persuasion, yes. But this implicates to respect each other too, regardless of any concept. You won´t change any stable opinion of someone however, why bother about that much and get into rage?

Todd clearly asked to calm down everybody, himself included. Why provoking again? Causing even more people to enter and stoke up the fire.

Would like to see the fires extinguished by just cease that fruitless "discussion". Talk about PT-boats instead of A-bombs...

Ralf

[tocaff]

Some of you just don't get it.  Yes, you Ike.  I started this thread to plea for calm, peace between us and even some sanity.  You, on the other hand insist on using it to continue an argument that was closed down in another thread despite my requests.  That is a lack of respect and I am now asking that this thread be closed.  Talk about whatever you want somewhere else, don't hijack my thread asking for calm.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Exactly what part of the difference between one "crminal" act being comitted out of a sadistic wanton desire for dominatioon and another being comitted out of an agonizing choice to find a way to shock an irrational enemy into finally quitting a lost fight in order to limit casulaties on BOTH sides do you persistently fail to grasp here Ike?

Ike, try answering the question instead of dodging it. The act might just earn you some respect.

[Ike99]

Well Tocaff and Hans, Tankerace is correct, we´ll never agree. I don´t think.

So really there is no point. Well about the peace thing Tocaff, I was never at war?

You all gave your opinions, I gave mine, we disagree, done deal. Let´s agree we disagree on the issue.

But for clarity I never brought this topic up, I never bring up these topics.

Joe is always getting me in trouble! (just joking Joe) [;)]

[HansBolter]

Dodged it again!

You're one dodgey character Ike, I'll give you that.

I'm more than willing to leave it at a gentlemenly agreement to disagree.

Peace.

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: Ike99

Joe is always getting me in trouble! (just joking Joe) [;)]

Ike, it's amazing how I do that while not even posted in this thread![;)]
Nice try, though, todd; BTW, your turn is in the mail.

For the record, many Allied generals and admirals regreted the use of the A-bomb, but most expressed this regret years after the fact, when they were no longer active duty. In fact, many WW II vets later regreted things they did during the war, just not at the time it was done.

This reminds me of the following dialogue from "The Magnificent Seven," an American Western based on a classic Japanese sammurai film:

Calvera: What I don't understand is why a man like you took the job in the first place, hmm? Why, huh?
Chris: I wonder myself.
Calvera: No, come on, come on, tell me why.
Vin: It's like a fellow I once knew in El Paso. One day, he just took all his clothes off and jumped in a mess of cactus. I asked him that same question, "Why?"
Calvera: And?
Vin: He said, "It seemed to be a good idea at the time."

The A-bomb, the fire-bombing of Dresden, the Axis raid on Coventry, and so on, all seemed to be good ideas at the time.

[anarchyintheuk]

Ike, a few minor points:

US was never a member of the League of Nations. Japan had withdrawn.

No individuals or countries were ever tried for aerial bombardment of civilians/cities/etc. at Nuremburg or the later Japanese war crime trials. If no one was tried, no one was held to a different legal standard.

It's your opinion that the a-bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are war crimes, not a fact.

It's been a long time since I read the 'Class A' Indictment document so my memory may be hazy. At least for the Class A individuals, IIRC some were tried for violations under the League of Nations articles (as well as the Hague Conventions, the Geneva Convention, etc.).

However, no one was tried under those articles you listed for the following reasons:

Hague Art. XXV isn't applicable. Most nations never signed it and it wasn't considered binding by any of the belligerants in WWI or after for Treaty of Versailles purposes . Also, under any definition that I can think of the two cities were not 'undefended'.

The Art. XXII which you quote is from the 1923 Hague Rules for Aerial Warfare. They were never adopted by the League of Nations.

A resolution has absolutely no force of law and is irrelevant.