It's not insecurity, it's just that when someone makes accusations of war crimes they need to be answered and shown how while there were war crimes committed the atomic bombings were not war crimes.Marxie said:Ahahah, that's an amazing dick analogy Yahtzee! This was great as usual. Now what do we have...
This thread is going places.Comments said:An entire page of American insecurity over their homeland's war crimes coming from one brief mentioning in a joke
The difference is that in those other cases the accusations are legitimate, they were done and they were clearly wrong. If the bombings of other major cities was fine then of course the nukings are fine.Marxie said:Both cities were civilian targets. There is absolutely no way to fit the bombardments into Hague Conventions or any other treaty regulating conduction of warfare. It was a deliberate breaking of all the conventions of civilian immunity.Xan Krieger said:the atomic bombings were not war crimes.
It can be argued that the bombings were morally justified in the scope of war, which does not however make them legally acceptable actions.
Somebody: >Imperialism in Africa and IndiaXan Krieger said:It's not insecurity
British person: Yeah, overall that was a big pile of bad stuff. So?
Somebody: >Holocaust
German person: Sure, our grandfathers were acting out of line there.
Somebody: >Cultural revolution
Chinese person: Yes, that's one big can of worms. And?
Somebody: >Katyn, GULAG
Russian person: Da, that was a bunch of really fucked up shit. Whatever.
Somebody: >Nuclear bombings
American person: How dare you! Explain your accusations at once! Truman did nothing wrong!
Xan Krieger said:It's not insecurity
Nuclear bombings were far better than what the Imperial Japanese Armed Forces had planned for their own citizens, the official Japanese war rhetoric called for ichioku gyokusai, 'the shattering of a hundred million jewels' - the beautiful martyrdom of an entire nation. That was literally part of their defence plan, martyrdom on a national scale.Marxie said:Both cities were civilian targets. There is absolutely no way to fit the bombardments into Hague Conventions or any other treaty regulating conduction of warfare. It was a deliberate breaking of all the conventions of civilian immunity.Xan Krieger said:the atomic bombings were not war crimes.
It can be argued that the bombings were morally justified in the scope of war, which does not however make them legally acceptable actions.
Somebody: >Imperialism in Africa and IndiaXan Krieger said:It's not insecurity
British person: Yeah, overall that was a big pile of bad stuff. So?
Somebody: >Holocaust
German person: Sure, our grandfathers were acting out of line there.
Somebody: >Cultural revolution
Chinese person: Yes, that's one big can of worms. And?
Somebody: >Katyn, GULAG
Russian person: Da, that was a bunch of really fucked up shit. Whatever.
Somebody: >Nuclear bombings
American person: How dare you! Explain your accusations at once! Truman did nothing wrong!
Xan Krieger said:It's not insecurity
Soviet strategy and japanese strategy would've not worked well against each other, both liked mass charges and it would've been a massive waste of men. Also like I said we bombed plenty of other cities specifically targeting civilians so if there was no legal problem there then why should there be one for the two cities involved in the nuking?Marxie said:This ideology did not survive the bombs. What makes everyone so sure it would survive simultaneous invasion by both US and USSR? Do Americans perceive the nukes as some magical devices that turned an entire nation's core ideology 180 degrees overnight, when nothing else could've done it?Do4600 said:Nuclear bombings were far better than what the Imperial Japanese Armed Forces had planned for their own citizens, the official Japanese war rhetoric called for ichioku gyokusai, 'the shattering of a hundred million jewels' - the beautiful martyrdom of an entire nation. That was literally part of their defence plan, martyrdom on a national scale.
And I wasn't even arguing for moral justification in that post. I specifically said that due to cities being civilian targets bombings WERE war crimes. Even if it can be rationalized that they prevented even greater casualties, and were not made just to prevent division of Japan into zones of influence with the USSR like it happened to Germany. And that Americans feel very insecure about it even though there is not much to be insecure about. It was another realpolitik decision which happened to contradict the international law, made among hundreds of others like it quite some time ago. Yet people need to defend it on all directions like it's the defining point of their entire life ideology.
And that's why the laws of war fail, nobody fights to lose and only the losers get prosecuted. It's extremely regretful but I don't know how to hold countries accountable.Marxie said:Uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuugh. Always good to meet a fellow historic warfare buff.Xan Krieger said:Soviet strategy and japanese strategy would've not worked well against each other, both liked mass charges and it would've been a massive waste of men
Who can judge the victors?Xan Krieger said:Also like I said we bombed plenty of other cities specifically targeting civilians so if there was no legal problem
No Soviet officer faced a tribunal for the Katyn massacre, so I guess that one is not a military crime either.