WTF!

[Ten oz]

On 7/29/2017 at 8:16 AM, StringJunky said:

Perhaps Eisenhower saw Nagasaki and Hiroshima that way. I don't think it was necessary but in the bigger historical picture they have taught everybody a long lasting lesson.

Eisenhower was a genral during WW2 and did become President not long after the wars conclusion so the mistake is understandable. Most people do view FDR as WW2's President followed by Eisenhower. Truman is often forgotten. That said the mistake is a bit egregious when one considers how Eisenhower actually felt about it:

 

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."

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

Eisenhower was a genral during WW2 and did become President not long after the wars conclusion so the mistake is understandable. Most people do view FDR as WW2's President followed by Eisenhower. Truman is often forgotten. That said the mistake is a bit egregious when one considers how Eisenhower actually felt about it:

 

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."

I remember reading his thoughts on it some time ago when I looked into the thought processes surrounding using the bombs. I thought at the time one was enough, if any.

[John Cuthber]

On 7/28/2017 at 7:22 PM, DrmDoc said:

Your assumption that all orders are legal surely doesn't hold for orders to commit crimes deem to be against humanity?  For example, Hitler ordered the extermination of people of Jewish decent.  Do you believe his soldiers were following legal orders?

If Hitler had won, those soldiers wouldn't have faced any trial questioning the legitimacy of the orders.

The orders were wrong (by almost any criteria) but they were legal.
 

[Ten oz]

11 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

I remember reading his thoughts on it some time ago when I looked into the thought processes surrounding using the bombs. I thought at the time one was enough, if any.

I am in agreement withPresident Eisenhower, General MacArthur, and Admirals Leahy, Nimitz, Halsey on the issue.

[DrmDoc]

On ‎7‎/‎29‎/‎2017 at 5:01 PM, zapatos said:

So pretty much any bomb dropped, from the time bombs were first dropped, is the result of an illegal order? More innocents die in war than combatants. While you can try to minimize it, loss of civilian life is unavoidable.

Indeed, the Vietnam conflict revealed multiple atrocities suffer by the innocent but none as vast and devastating as those suffered by Japanese citizens when our government dropped two atomic bombs on their country.

[DrmDoc]

On ‎7‎/‎30‎/‎2017 at 11:10 AM, John Cuthber said:

If Hitler had won, those soldiers wouldn't have faced any trial questioning the legitimacy of the orders.

The orders were wrong (by almost any criteria) but they were legal.
 

I agree and said as much in this discussion with the following:

Quote

Nevertheless, our military has indeed engaged behavior, under orders, that would be considered a crime against humanity if we had not won the conflict; i.e., Hiroshima and Nagasaki, in my opinion.

 

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, DrmDoc said:

Indeed...

I suspect your definition of what constitutes an 'illegal order' differs from that of most people.

[DrmDoc]

10 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I suspect your definition of what constitutes an 'illegal order' differs from that of most people.

What's legal or illegal is, of course, determined by the victor in war and the established laws of a governing body.  However, what is legal isn't necessarily humane, moral, or decent and, perhaps, that is the distinction between my perspective and some of those expressed here.  Indeed, it's all subjective and better discussed as philosophy.

[Area54]

12 hours ago, DrmDoc said:

Indeed, the Vietnam conflict revealed multiple atrocities suffer by the innocent but none as vast and devastating as those suffered by Japanese citizens when our government dropped two atomic bombs on their country.

I would extend this to the firebombing of all but five major Japanese cities, Dresden and the deliberate targeting of civilians by the RAF under Bomber Harris.

[swansont]

4 hours ago, Area54 said:

I would extend this to the firebombing of all but five major Japanese cities, Dresden and the deliberate targeting of civilians by the RAF under Bomber Harris.

What about the Germans? AFAICT Göring wasn't prosecuted for war crimes for what the Luftwaffe did.

[Ten oz]

16 hours ago, DrmDoc said:

Indeed, the Vietnam conflict revealed multiple atrocities suffer by the innocent but none as vast and devastating as those suffered by Japanese citizens when our government dropped two atomic bombs on their country.

 

4 hours ago, Area54 said:

I would extend this to the firebombing of all but five major Japanese cities, Dresden and the deliberate targeting of civilians by the RAF under Bomber Harris.

Laws and policy change over time. Many things done in the past would be crimes if done today. In addition to whats qouted below other policies worth reading are the "Seabed Arms Control Treaty", Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty", "outer Space Treaty", and the "Biological Weapons Convention".

"The War Powers Resolution (also known as the War Powers Resolution of 1973 or the War Powers Act) (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548)[1] is a federal law intended to check the president's power to commit the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of the U.S. Congress. The Resolution was adopted in the form of a United States Congress joint resolution. It provides that the U.S. President can send U.S. Armed Forces into action abroad only by declaration of war by Congress, "statutory authorization," or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

 

"The War Crimes Act of 1996 is a law that defines a war crime to include a "grave breach of the Geneva Conventions", specifically noting that "grave breach" should have the meaning defined in any convention (related to the laws of war) to which the United States is a party. The definition of "grave breach" in some of the Geneva Conventions have text that extend additional protections, but all the Conventions share the following text in common: "... committed against persons or property protected by the Convention: willful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health."

The law applies if either the victim or the perpetrator is a national of the United States or a member of the U.S. Armed Forces. The penalty may be life imprisonment or death. The death penalty is only invoked if the conduct resulted in the death of one or more victims.

The act was passed with overwhelming majorities by the United States Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton."

 

 

[Area54]

6 hours ago, swansont said:

What about the Germans? AFAICT Göring wasn't prosecuted for war crimes for what the Luftwaffe did.

What about them? I wasn't discussing the immoral acts of the Japanese, or the Germans, or the Russians, or the Italians, but specifically those of the UK and the USA. These do not suddenly gain respectability because some other immoral act, by some other powee was overlooked. That is what you appear to be suggesting should be the case. I hope I am simply misinterpreting you.

[swansont]

25 minutes ago, Area54 said:

What about them? I wasn't discussing the immoral acts of the Japanese, or the Germans, or the Russians, or the Italians, but specifically those of the UK and the USA. These do not suddenly gain respectability because some other immoral act, by some other powee was overlooked. That is what you appear to be suggesting should be the case. I hope I am simply misinterpreting you.

Well, why not?

If they didn't prosecute German officials for doing things like bombing London, why would you expect that Allied leaders would be culpable for similar acts? (In fact, they did prosecute Dönitz for treaty violations related to submarine warfare but assigned him no punishment because the US violated the same treaty, but I see no indication that charges were even brought against Göring)

Basically, it boils down to what treaty was violated that makes it a war crime.

[Area54]

22 minutes ago, swansont said:

Well, why not?

If they didn't prosecute German officials for doing things like bombing London, why would you expect that Allied leaders would be culpable for similar acts? (In fact, they did prosecute Dönitz for treaty violations related to submarine warfare but assigned him no punishment because the US violated the same treaty, but I see no indication that charges were even brought against Göring)

Basically, it boils down to what treaty was violated that makes it a war crime.

I never characterised it as a war crime. I responded to a specific post by DreamDoc where he stated " Indeed, the Vietnam conflict revealed multiple atrocities suffer by the innocent but none as vast and devastating as those suffered by Japanese citizens when our government dropped two atomic bombs on their country."

In my post I proposed extending the characterisation of "multiple atrocities" to some of the conventional bombingcarried out by the Allies. I expressed no opinion as to whether or not these were war crimes, as to whether or not Allied officials should have been prosecuted, nor did I choose to comment on the inconsistencies of the Nuremberg trials.

Your two posts on this matter appear to be based on a misunderstanding of what I was saying. I believe my position was clear in relation to Dream Doc's single post that I addressed. Perhaps you were associating me with a different position held, or thought to be held by Dream Doc.

[DrmDoc]

12 hours ago, Area54 said:

I would extend this to the firebombing of all but five major Japanese cities, Dresden and the deliberate targeting of civilians by the RAF under Bomber Harris.

I take your point, Japanese civilians had been the target of our bombings well before America needlessly launched its nuclear attacks. That war was nasty business on both sides with Germany's attempt at genocide, Japan's death marches, and America's ignoble distinction as the only nation to ever use nuclear weapons against another nation and its civilian population. 

Edited August 1, 2017 by DrmDoc
grammer

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Area54 said:

I never characterised it as a war crime. I responded to a specific post by DreamDoc where he stated " Indeed, the Vietnam conflict revealed multiple atrocities suffer by the innocent but none as vast and devastating as those suffered by Japanese citizens when our government dropped two atomic bombs on their country."

This was all an offshoot of whether something is a legal order. If you can't be prosecuted for it, it's a legal order. That's the context I was using in my comments.

Characterizing it as an atrocity in any other context is a separate issue, and IMO irrelevant to the discussion.

[swansont]

On 7/28/2017 at 2:45 PM, DrmDoc said:

I see; however, I can't imagine any soldier would consider an order to end an innocent's life legal.  Nevertheless, our military has indeed engaged behavior, under orders, that would be considered a crime against humanity if we had not won the conflict; i.e., Hiroshima and Nagasaki, in my opinion. 

See above. Use of nukes was not forbidden by treaty (how could it be?). Can't try someone for a crime if their action isn't a crime.

Use of chemical weapons was, and Japanese soldiers were held to account for doing so.

[Area54]

1 minute ago, swansont said:

Characterizing it as an atrocity in any other context is a separate issue, and IMO irrelevant to the discussion.

Perhaps we should mark this day annually as the first time an important, but off topic issue was raised on an internet forum.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, DrmDoc said:

I take your point, Japanese civilians had been the target of our bombings well before America needlessly launched its nuclear attacks. That war was nasty business on both sides with Germany's attempt at genocide, Japan's death marches, and America's ignoble distinction as the only nation to ever use nuclear weapons against another nation and its civilian population. 

OTOH, in a war, you win by any means at your disposal that's permissible.  

[swansont]

3 minutes ago, Area54 said:

Perhaps we should mark this day annually as the first time an important, but off topic issue was raised on an internet forum.

As well as the first use of snark to excuse it.

[Area54]

1 minute ago, swansont said:

As well as the first use of snark to excuse it.

Lighten up.

[DrmDoc]

9 minutes ago, swansont said:

See above. Use of nukes was not forbidden by treaty (how could it be?). Can't try someone for a crime if their action isn't a crime.

Use of chemical weapons was, and Japanese soldiers were held to account for doing so.

You're quite right; however, genocide in war wasn't a crime either until the Genocide Convention of 1951, which enactment after the war didn't prevent the perpetrators of genocide during the war from being charged, tried, and found guilt of that crime.  I think if Japan had been the victor, Truman and his generals would most certainly have been tried as war criminals.

[MigL]

I don't think so.

There would have been no trial involved.

[HB of CJ]

Can anybody here provide a link of the Admiral actually answering that question?  I would like to see his lips move.  IF HE did in fact answer that question in the matter he did then he needs to be severely corrected by National Command Authority.  Yep ... individuals at that point of the pecking order should know better as to what to say and what not to say.   Just me.  Respectfully.

[iNow]

9 minutes ago, HB of CJ said:

Can anybody here provide a link of the Admiral actually answering that question?  I would like to see his lips move. 

This, unfortunately, isn't as helpful as it used to be. We now have photoshop for audio.

http://www.radiolab.org/story/breaking-news/