Geopolitics

[DanH]

I don't know why you think this is a huge misuse of the word when many very reputable military historians describe the best of a bunch of shit options as "The merciful choice".

Anthony Beevor quite literally refers to Franco not executing political prisoners but making them live the rest of their lives in prison as "A rare show of mercy", despite obviously the latter option being still absolutely awful. I don't even agree with Beevor in this regard, there's other options here like, how about not jailing political opponents at all.

But mercy is a term that is very commonly use in military history deciphering war planners doing something bad rather than something much much worse.

This thread is moving off-topic but I think one additional point that makes 'mercy' misleading is that the US would have derived an enormous benefit from the use of the atomic weapons and that would have surely been the primary deciding factor in the decision they took. Had they decided to go another route to bring about Japan's surrender there may have been more Japanese casualties but there would also have been many allied casualties and loss of materiel along with huge costs and strains on logistics.

With the examples given there is little cost to the person in the dominant position. There would have been no real detriment to Franco if he had ordered them killed, in fact it would probably have been the easier/safer option so there could be seen to be some mercy in that decision but I don't think it applies well to the US/Japan situation.

 

[TwoSheds]

What if I don't think killing 1/4 million civilians being called mercy is trivial? Is that allowed?

You can think what you like and I can think it's fecking embarrassing and pathetic trying to police someone's language that is very much not generally considered offensive.

 

[VorZakone]

There are a lot of ifs and buts before we reach that though. First the leaders must be the most stubborn in the history of man. Then there must be food shortages. And lastly the people (and the army) must be unable to revolt.

There was no option without risk to human life, but I don't think that the nuclear bombs were the best option. Not to mention there was no guarantee of surrender after that second bomb either! In which case you have also committed a brutal war crime.

There was a blockade on Germany in WW1 and German civilians died of hunger. In your scenario, that could have happened in large numbers to the Japanese.

 

[maniak]

You can think what you like and I can think it's fecking embarrassing and pathetic trying to police someone's language that is very much not generally considered offensive.

Normally we let those who are targeted by something tell us if something is wrong or offensive, so maybe take it to Mr. Yoshimasa Hayashi, who thinks it's extremely wrong to say the nuking of japan was the right decision. But maybe you also want to police how the japanese feel about it.

 

[AfonsoAlves]

There was a blockade on Germany in WW1 and German civilians died of hunger. In your scenario, that could have happened in large numbers to the Japanese.

the funny thing is COMSUBPAC had essentially reduced Japan to full on war-time rationing for two years and even then, nothing changed.

The japanese didn't surrender after being nuked twice?

Your point was that the country surrendered due to the impact of the bombs destroying their will to fight.

No, what the actual cause of the surrender was that the Emperor decided to involve himself in politics, almost triggering a constitutional crisis and resulted in a coup against his family, to bring a stop to the war.

The war cabinet and the Army who were basically in charge of the country wanted to continue fighting, in fact, the Head of the Army basically said to the Emperor with a full audience that what he was doing (surrender) was causing great shame on his family, himself and the country of Japan.

Also @maniak you say the US are the bad guys for the Nukes.

What would you have done instead of dropping the nukes?

 

[Scandi Red]

There was a blockade on Germany in WW1 and German civilians died of hunger. In your scenario, that could have happened in large numbers to the Japanese.

There was no option without risk to human life. I can't know for sure that strangling Japan's trade would have lead to less overall suffering than the nuclear bombs. No one can because it's a hypothetical.

That does not mean that the bombs weren't a particularly nasty act. And I don't believe that it was meant to be a merciful option, even if that is what certain leaders would communicate.

 

[AfonsoAlves]

There was no option without risk to human life. I can't know for sure that strangling Japan's trade would have lead to less overall suffering than the nuclear bombs. No one can because it's a hypothetical.

That does not mean that the bombs weren't a particularly nasty act. And I don't believe that it was meant to be a merciful option, even if that is what certain leaders would communicate.

Why don't you read the discussions on the war cabinet that are available on online archives discussing the use of the bomb?

They discuss everything that has been discussed in this thread, only they were the decision makers.

 

[maniak]

the funny thing is COMSUBPAC had essentially reduced Japan to full on war-time rationing for two years and even then, nothing changed.



Your point was that the country surrendered due to the impact of the bombs destroying their will to fight.

No, what the actual cause of the surrender was that the Emperor decided to involve himself in politics, almost triggering a constitutional crisis and resulted in a coup against his family, to bring a stop to the war.

The war cabinet and the Army who were basically in charge of the country wanted to continue fighting, in fact, the Head of the Army basically said to the Emperor with a full audience that what he was doing (surrender) was causing great shame on his family, himself and the country of Japan.

Also @maniak you say the US are the bad guys for the Nukes.

What would you have done instead of dropping the nukes?

You're contradicting yourself. You argued the nuked were necessary to force japan to surrender and now you're saying they weren't the cause of the surrender? Then using them was even worse...

The US were the bad guys by dropping the nukes, yeah.

I don't know what I would've done. I know that whatever my choice, I would call it maybe a necessary evil, never humane or a mercy for my enemies. Which was my initial point.

 

[AfonsoAlves]

You're contradicting yourself. You argued the nuked were necessary to force japan to surrender and now you're saying they weren't the cause of the surrender? Then using them was even worse...

The US were the bad guys by dropping the nukes, yeah.

I don't know what I would've done. I know that whatever my choice, I would call it maybe a necessary evil, never humane or a mercy for my enemies. Which was my initial point.

Nukes were a gamble to force Japan to surrender, a gamble that worked out much better than the alternative.

Even then, as I mentioned again pages ago, it almost didn't work. IF you had actually read my posts rather than choose to be outraged you would have noticed I said this 100 posts ago.

In fact, one of the reasons it worked was because a captured downed P-51 pilot told some bullshot under interrogation that US had 100 more of them ready for use and that filtered to the Emperor's ears.

 

[maniak]

Nukes were a gamble to force Japan to surrender, a gamble that worked out much better than the alternative.

Even then, as I mentioned again pages ago, it almost didn't work. IF you had actually read my posts rather than choose to be outraged you would have noticed I said this 100 posts ago.

In fact, one of the reasons it worked was because a captured downed P-51 pilot told some bullshot under interrogation that US had 100 more of them ready for use and that filtered to the Emperor's ears.

It just makes it worse in my mind. "Let's nuke 2 cities, kill hundreds of thousands of civilians and let's hope it works. It's worth the gamble." It sound pretty sociopathic to me.

Outraged? C'mon mate this is not a newspaper comment section. I think it's in extreme bad taste to use the words you use to describe these horrible crimes.

But I see it's a hill you're willing to die on, so I guess that's that.

 

[Frosty]

Ending this discussion would be merciful.

 

[VorZakone]

There was no option without risk to human life. I can't know for sure that strangling Japan's trade would have lead to less overall suffering than the nuclear bombs. No one can because it's a hypothetical.

That does not mean that the bombs weren't a particularly nasty act. And I don't believe that it was meant to be a merciful option, even if that is what certain leaders would communicate.

You said that you believed the leaders would have broken first if Japan was blockaded. Maybe, maybe not.

My point was to highlight that we've seen blockades before and the leadership did continue to fight for a while. And in the meantime, there was starvation, like in Germany during WW1. Instead of breaking by surrendering, they tried to break the blockade instead with submarine warfare.

 

[maniak]

Ending this discussion would be merciful.

What is it with people in this thread? Are you being forced to read our posts?

 

[AfonsoAlves]

It just makes it worse in my mind. "Let's nuke 2 cities, kill hundreds of thousands of civilians and let's hope it works. It's worth the gamble." It sound pretty sociopathic to me.

Outraged? C'mon mate this is not a newspaper comment section. I think it's in extreme bad taste to use the words you use to describe these horrible crimes.

But I see it's a hill you're willing to die on, so I guess that's that.

You can call it sociopathic if you want - take that up with the Historians who pretty unanimously agree on this topic.

Anyway this is my last post on this, but I strongly implore to do some in depth reading on these topics rather than go with "common sense" when it isn't all that common and in many cases your common sense proves you wrong.

 

[maniak]

You can call it sociopathic if you want - take that up with the Historians who pretty unanimously agree on this topic.

Anyway this is my last post on this, but I strongly implore to do some in depth reading on these topics rather than go with "common sense" when it isn't all that common and in many cases your common sense proves you wrong.

I'll tell them as soon as they start posting on the caf.

I don't need to read more because my initial point was never about political and military decisions. I'm sure many people can prove me wrong on those.

But using nice words to describe terrible events is a personal choice, not an academic one, so that was always my "beef" with what you said.

 

[TwoSheds]

Normally we let those who are targeted by something tell us if something is wrong or offensive, so maybe take it to Mr. Yoshimasa Hayashi, who thinks it's extremely wrong to say the nuking of japan was the right decision. But maybe you also want to police how the japanese feel about it.

But you're not trying to police whether he's right or not, you're trying to police one particular innocuous word used in the argument.

As for your argument such as it is, if I were a survivor of an atomic bomb I would absolutely think it was the wrong choice and I might even be right, but I reckon I'd also think that the other options were pretty catastrophic too and there was no clear cut right answer to what they ought to have done.

Personally I've always subscribed to the view that the 2nd bomb might not have been necessary if they hadn't purposely dropped leaflets that riled up the population after the first attack. And they may well have even done it on purpose or at least half on purpose knowing how the Japanese would react so they got to test both their new bombs. On the other hand I know far less about it than AfonsoAlves clearly seems to so I wouldn't like to tell you I'm right as I'm probably not.

 

[hasanejaz88]

I am not the one picking 2 events in history and acting as if they happened in a vacuum with no other comparable events.



Those were the two practical options available to the US in 1945, yes. I know you would not have cared for any US military that would have died on the beaches of Japan, but their families would have cared. Please show me any reputable source that says it is universally accepted that the bombing of German cities in WW2 was a war crime (of course it wasn't, the Germans pretty much pioneered bombing civilians into submission (by air) and everyone accepted that the society that brought that onto Europe didn't deserve to be the one spared).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3830135.stm

This article mentions who some people say it's a war crime, it is disputed (I never said universally). It was a deliberate targeting of innocent civilians for purposes of demoralizing the population.

Why the feck would it matter what the Germans did before and justify what happened in Dresden? It's that kind of logic that leads to more deadly events a cycle of violence.

Btw, (not to @Abizzz specifically) should Israel nuke Gaza to finally put a stop to the war with Hamas?

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

Btw, (not to @Abizzz specifically) should Israel nuke Gaza to finally put a stop to the war with Hamas?

Maybe they could just stop funding them instead?

 

[JeffFromHK]

debates on whether USA committed war crimes by nuking Japan would never come to an end since in the end since "war crime" is a socially constructed subjective concept and people have different perceptions of whether a crime could exist before it is institutionally criminalized.

I think what matters is consistency. As long as those posters saying USA committed war crimes also acknowledge that "every participating nation in WWII was a committer of war crimes, and of course USSR was a bigger offender of war crimes than USA" and "every single regime existing before 1900 was an evil brutal violator of human rights and offender of war crimes" and "99+% of pre 1900 historical figures were racists and misogynists" they are consistent at least there is no need for further debates.

 

[AfonsoAlves]

debates on whether USA committed war crimes by nuking Japan would never come to an end since in the end since "war crime" is a socially constructed subjective concept and people have different perceptions of whether a crime could exist before it is institutionally criminalized.

I think what matters is consistency. As long as those posters saying USA committed war crimes also acknowledge that "every participating nation in WWII was a committer of war crimes, and of course USSR was a bigger offender of war crimes than USA" and "every single regime existing before 1900 was an evil brutal violator of human rights and offender of war crimes" and "99+% of pre 1900 historical figures were racists and misogynists" they are consistent at least there is no need for further debates.

Yeah this, throwing War Crimes about like candy retroactively makes no sense in context.

Otherwise we're reduced to shit like stating Vikings, Romans, Normans, Saxons, Jutes, Greeks, Persians, Scythians, Parthians, Bactrians, Macedonians, Holy Roman Empire, Ottomans, Spanish, French, British, Mughals, Qing, Han, Ming, Yuan, Mongols, USA, Denmark etc etc etc were all hardened war criminals.

It loses its meaning entirely, especially since War Crimes are a post-WWII retrospective rethinking and reflective doctrine on how to make war less cruel.

 

[JeffFromHK]

Yeah this, throwing War Crimes about like candy retroactively makes no sense in context.

Otherwise we're reduced to shit like stating Vikings, Romans, Normans, Saxons, Jutes, Greeks, Persians, Scythians, Parthians, Bactrians, Macedonians, Holy Roman Empire, Ottomans, Spanish, French, British, Mughals, Qing, Han, Ming, Yuan, Mongols, USA, Denmark etc etc etc were all hardened war criminals.

It loses its meaning entirely, especially since War Crimes are a post-WWII retrospective rethinking and reflective doctrine on how to make war less cruel.

interestingly this topic had been heavily discussed in the (liberal side) of chinese social media and we jokingly said that, according to the same logic, all lions and tigers are brutal murderers and most male dogs are disgusting rapists.

 

[maniak]

debates on whether USA committed war crimes by nuking Japan would never come to an end since in the end since "war crime" is a socially constructed subjective concept and people have different perceptions of whether a crime could exist before it is institutionally criminalized.

I think what matters is consistency. As long as those posters saying USA committed war crimes also acknowledge that "every participating nation in WWII was a committer of war crimes, and of course USSR was a bigger offender of war crimes than USA" and "every single regime existing before 1900 was an evil brutal violator of human rights and offender of war crimes" and "99+% of pre 1900 historical figures were racists and misogynists" they are consistent at least there is no need for further debates.

I have absolutely no problem with that.

But I also expect consistency in saying for example gazans right now are slowly dying of starvation and disease, so each israeli bombardment that cleans an entire building killing a hundred people is in fact a merciful act. They probably would've suffered a lot more in the months to come.

Of course people realize saying this would make them a sociopath, I just wonder why japanese civilians during WW2 aren't deserving of the same respect.

 

[maniak]

Yeah this, throwing War Crimes about like candy retroactively makes no sense in context.

Otherwise we're reduced to shit like stating Vikings, Romans, Normans, Saxons, Jutes, Greeks, Persians, Scythians, Parthians, Bactrians, Macedonians, Holy Roman Empire, Ottomans, Spanish, French, British, Mughals, Qing, Han, Ming, Yuan, Mongols, USA, Denmark etc etc etc were all hardened war criminals.

It loses its meaning entirely, especially since War Crimes are a post-WWII retrospective rethinking and reflective doctrine on how to make war less cruel.

250.000 dead civilians in only 2 events = throwing War Crimes about like candy.

Do you think russia has committed any war crimes in ukraine? Of course you do. I wonder what's the difference here, it can't possibly be that some crimes are committed by your side and other crimes are committed by the enemy.

 

[hasanejaz88]

Maybe they could just stop funding them instead?

Well, that's a separate discussion in itself.

 

[Beachryan]

Just to dip a toe in here - for those questioning the nuke as a war-ending decision, in most instances I think it's obviously morally wrong. But you do need to study the Japanese mindset at the time, which is utterly, unbelievably, almost uniquely insane. Despite learning about it from good first-hand sources, I still struggle to comprehend the fanaticism coupled with seemingly genuine believe in the divine order of things.

This was not a rational actor, to whom starvation of millions of citizens was particularly motivating.

 

[DanH]

250.000 dead civilians in only 2 events = throwing War Crimes about like candy.

Do you think russia has committed any war crimes in ukraine? Of course you do. I wonder what's the difference here, it can't possibly be that some crimes are committed by your side and other crimes are committed by the enemy.

@AfonsoAlves has already said that in their opinion the difference is the date. There have been many battles and wars throughout history where the conduct of the combatants, if judged by today's standards, would be considered war crimes but it wouldn't really serve much purpose to call the Romans or the Qin dynasty war criminals.

 

[hasanejaz88]

People also need to get it straight that the US' aim of the nuclear bombs was to stop the war for their own soldiers sake, not for some altruistic purposes of sparing more Japanese from dying (mercy ). They couldn't give less of a crap about Japanese lives when they were dropping the bomb, they intentionally choose places with a urban population that would result in maximum damage and psychological trauma for the people there. One of their reasons for potentially picking Kyoto was, in the words of the minutes of the meeting where they discussed which cities to bomb:

"It is the former capital of Japan and many people and industries are now being moved there as other areas are being destroyed. From the psychological point of view there is the advantage that Kyoto is an intellectual center for Japan and the people there are more apt to appreciate the significance of such a weapon as the gadget. "

So please, stop with this nonsense that they cared about Japanese lives being killed in the war.

 

[AfonsoAlves]

People also need to get it straight that the US' aim of the nuclear bombs was to stop the war for their own soldiers sake, not for some altruistic purposes of sparing more Japanese from dying (mercy ). They couldn't give less of a crap about Japanese lives when they were dropping the bomb, they intentionally choose places with a urban population that would result in maximum damage and psychological trauma for the people there. One of their reasons for potentially picking Kyoto was, in the words of the minutes of the meeting where they discussed which cities to bomb:

"It is the former capital of Japan and many people and industries are now being moved there as other areas are being destroyed. From the psychological point of view there is the advantage that Kyoto is an intellectual center for Japan and the people there are more apt to appreciate the significance of such a weapon as the gadget. "

So please, stop with this nonsense that they cared about Japanese lives being killed in the war.

Oh please, said with such confidence. Can you link to these minutes please?

The conversation around nuclear bombs lasted for months, with so many meetings. I have been to the Missouri library of Harry S Truman to read them all in paper form. This was never there.

I know this was never there because it actually came from a report written by Dr Joyce Stearns (who was a nuclear scientist working on the Manhattan project, he later was part of the group that urged to not use the bomb, ironically) (This is also a topic of contention whether it was Robert Stearns or Joyce Stearns who wrote it).

Here is the report itself, you can find the Kyoto quote directly written and attibuted to Dr Stearns.

https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/6.pdf

Why are you writing misinformation?

 

[hasanejaz88]

Oh please, said with such confidence. Can you link to these minutes please?

The conversation around nuclear bombs lasted for months, with so many meetings. I have been to the Missouri library of Harry S Truman to read them all in paper form. This was never there.

I know this was never there because it actually came from a report written by Dr Joyce Stearns (who was a nuclear scientist working on the Manhattan project, he later was part of the group that urged to not use the bomb, ironically) (This is also a topic of contention whether it was Robert Stearns or Joyce Stearns who wrote it).

Here is the report itself, you can find the Kyoto quote directly written and attibuted to Dr Stearns.

https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/6.pdf

Why are you writing misinformation?

How is that misinformation? Those were directly discussed in the meeting, Dr Sterns was in the meeting) and the result from what was that Kyoto was the top of the list of potential targets:

B. It was the recommendation of those present at the meeting that the first four choices of targets for our weapon should be the following:
a. Kyoto
b. Hiroshima
c. Yokohama
d. Kokura Arsenal

And even this was said during the meeting:

7. Psychological Factors in Target Selection

A. It was agreed that psychological factors in the target selection were of great importance. Two aspects of this are (1) obtaining the greatest psychological effect against Japan and (2) making the initial use sufficiently spectacular for the importance of the weapon to be internationally recognized when publicity on it is released.

B. In this respect Kyoto has the advantage of the people being more highly intelligent and hence better able to appreciate the significance of the weapon. Hiroshima has the advantage of being such a size and with possible focussing from nearby mountains that a large fraction of the city may be destroyed. The Emperor's palace in Tokyo has a greater fame than any other target but is of least strategic value.

 

[AfonsoAlves]

How is that misinformation? Those were directly discussed in the meeting, Dr Sterns was in the meeting) and the result from what was that Kyoto was the top of the list of potential targets:

B. It was the recommendation of those present at the meeting that the first four choices of targets for our weapon should be the following:
a. Kyoto
b. Hiroshima
c. Yokohama
d. Kokura Arsenal

And even this was said during the meeting:

7. Psychological Factors in Target Selection

A. It was agreed that psychological factors in the target selection were of great importance. Two aspects of this are (1) obtaining the greatest psychological effect against Japan and (2) making the initial use sufficiently spectacular for the importance of the weapon to be internationally recognized when publicity on it is released.

B. In this respect Kyoto has the advantage of the people being more highly intelligent and hence better able to appreciate the significance of the weapon. Hiroshima has the advantage of being such a size and with possible focussing from nearby mountains that a large fraction of the city may be destroyed. The Emperor's palace in Tokyo has a greater fame than any other target but is of least strategic value.

Because this was never a minutes meeting by the actual decision makers or the American war cabinet, this was a consultation meeting by a representative of the US army and the nuclear scientists, asking for their opinion. This report was then sent upwards for the war cabinet to read.

To quote one scientist who partook in a consultation to reflect the broad views of the decision makers is honestly purposeful misrepresentation of the situation.

 

[JeffFromHK]

Intentions could be multifaceted, especially when a collective (each person with a different mindset) is involved in making the decision. So it is probably futile to dwell too much into the intention.

anyway, the whole discussion was sparked by Pav1878's objection to my take that "USA/UK were relatively humane/moral forces in WWII" (given that axis POWs held by USA/UK had a death rate of lower than 0.1% while soldiers held POWs by USSR/Germany/Japan had a death rate of 30-50%), his strongest piece of evidence was that USA used A Bomb to obliterate 200k+ civilians in one go.
Would love to hear the takes of other members here.

 

[hasanejaz88]

Because this was never a minutes meeting by the actual decision makers or the American war cabinet, this was a consultation meeting by a representative of the US army and the nuclear scientists, asking for their opinion. This report was then sent upwards for the war cabinet to read.

To quote one scientist who partook in a consultation to reflect the broad views of the decision makers is honestly purposeful misrepresentation of the situation.

They were the committee selected to choose which cities to target. That means the decision makers trusted them with that research and wording of the minutes shows exactly what logic they were told to use for it. Don't you think if the final war committee had the heart of gold you so say they would've gone back to that committee and said wtf kind of logic are you using in selecting these cities.

The war cabinet seemed to have used these recommendations for their final decision, so that makes them equally culpable.

 

[AfonsoAlves]

They were the committee selected to choose which cities to target. That means the decision makers trusted them with that research and wording of the minutes shows exactly what logic they were told to use for it. Don't you think if the final war committee had the heart of gold you so say they would've gone back to that committee and said wtf kind of logic are you using in selecting these cities.

The war cabinet seemed to have used these recommendations for their final decision, so that makes them equally culpable.

No they were fecking not, they were a bunch of people who were asked their opinion. Amongst many other groups. Where the feck are you getting this from? Are you literally making this up on the spot?

They didn't, they tore those recommendations up and started again using a completely different set of criteria.

Had you actually read the minutes, like you allured, you would know this.

The thing is, you're not 100% wrong in that there were actual nuclear hawks on those meetings. McArthur and his general staff were hugely militantly in favour of it, whereas Stettinus and Cordell Hull were vehmently against even the idea of it.

How you got to your conclusions is utterly farcical though through purposeful misinterpretation of primary sources and carving your own weird narrative.

 

[hasanejaz88]

No they were fecking not, they were a bunch of people who were asked their opinion. Amongst many other groups. Where the feck are you getting this from? Are you literally making this up on the spot?

They didn't, they tore those recommendations up and started again using a completely different set of criteria.

Had you actually read the minutes, like you allured, you would know this.

The thing is, you're not 100% wrong in that there were actual nuclear hawks on those meetings. McArthur and his general staff were hugely militantly in favour of it, whereas Stettinus and Cordell Hull were vehmently against even the idea of it.

How you got to your conclusions is utterly farcical though through purposeful misinterpretation of primary sources and carving your own weird narrative.

Any evidence of this? Or what the new recommendations were?

 

[DanH]

anyway, the whole discussion was sparked by Pav1878's objection to my take that "USA/UK were relatively humane/moral forces in WWII" (given that axis POWs held by USA/UK had a death rate of lower than 0.1% while soldiers held POWs by USSR/Germany/Japan had a death rate of 30-50%), his strongest piece of evidence was that USA used A Bomb to obliterate 200k+ civilians in one go.
Would love to hear the takes of other members here.

It shouldn't really be up for debate that, on the whole, the allied forces (not including Russia) were less brutal.

 

[AfonsoAlves]

Any evidence of this? Or what the new recommendations were?

The report I linked was submitted to the Cabinet and discussions there got pretty heated. At the same time as the Select commitee consisting of Groves + Scientists, another group was formed called the "Interim committee" which was meant to provide oversight on all things Nuclear.

After almost a month of debate and discussion, there were some amendments. Kyoto was removed entirely. There were only 7 cities left that hadn't been destroyed by Strategic bombing and so the list became 4 + Nagasaki. Prioritization was shifted away from "impact" and "awe" to strategic value.

After the first draft, Tokyo got removed from the list entirely because all of its heavy industry had already been destroyed in the firebombings.

Niigata was originally 4) on the list but for multiple reasons it got removed entirely.

Hiroshima which was originally 2) on the list got pushed to 1), Kokura got pushed to 2) as it was the largest munitions plant in Japan,

Yokohama was pushed to 3) and Nagasaki 4)

Just before the launch, Yokohama was removed entirely because the population density was too high, casualties would have been outrageous.

Therefore the final target list was 1) Hiroshima 2) Kokura 3) Nagasaki

On the day of the Nagasaki operation, Kokura's weather was unsuitable so Nagasaki became the target.

EDIT - On a specific meeting, there was discussions on dropping the bomb on Tokyo's Imperial Palace and the response from one particular staffer (who is unclear) was basically, "It has no strategic value, they have suffered already and all we'd all regret it for our lives".

 

[maniak]

@AfonsoAlves has already said that in their opinion the difference is the date. There have been many battles and wars throughout history where the conduct of the combatants, if judged by today's standards, would be considered war crimes but it wouldn't really serve much purpose to call the Romans or the Qin dynasty war criminals.

I'm not talking about the romans or the qin, I'm talking about 1945. The concept of war crime existed and had been widely discussed by then. That's why semantics and technicalities are the only thing left to defend the american actions.

Just imagine the line thinking for other things. I have no idea when rape was introduced as an official law in the UK, but surely no one would argue that women weren't raped before that date because it wasn't illegal.

 

[AfonsoAlves]

I'm not talking about the romans or the qin, I'm talking about 1945. The concept of war crime existed and had been widely discussed by then. That's why semantics and technicalities are the only thing left to defend the american actions.

Just imagine the line thinking for other things. I have no idea when rape was introduced as an official law in the UK, but surely no one would argue that women weren't raped before that date because it wasn't illegal.

But it's absolutely pointless to use modern labels that were created as a retrospective reflection of actions to apply them to historical contexts.

You're then left with pointless conclusions like "Every single participant in almost every war prior to the Geneva convention were guilty of war crimes"

Great, is that the conclusion you wanted to reach?

It's great that you use Rape as one, is it worth saying that every single man in marriage was probably a rapist in the Western World prior to the 19th century because a) Underage sex wasn't defined and b) Rape in a marriage wasn't defined either and men could feck their wives whenever they wanted and were protected by law to do so?

I mean, technically it's true. Most men pre 19th century were rapists by the modern definition. What actually point are you trying to reach with these sweeping comments? That society rules were shit back then? We all know that.

 

[AfonsoAlves]

Definitions of War Crimes constantly change, for example Geneva convention got changed 6 times during the course of the GWOT due to edge cases that wasn't adhered to.

If you look at provisions made after the 30 years war in the Treaty of Westaphilia, and compare it to the Geneva convention, things change.

Retroactively applying crimes for moral judgement is insane.

 

[maniak]

But it's absolutely pointless to use modern labels that were created as a retrospective reflection of actions to apply them to historical contexts.

You're then left with pointless conclusions like "Every single participant in almost every war prior to the Geneva convention were guilty of war crimes"

Great, is that the conclusion you wanted to reach?

It's great that you use Rape as one, is it worth saying that every single man in marriage was probably a rapist in the Western World prior to the 19th century because a) Underage sex wasn't defined and b) Rape in a marriage wasn't defined either and men could feck their wives whenever they wanted and were protected by law to do so?

I mean, technically it's true. Most men pre 19th century were rapists by the modern definition. What actually point are you trying to reach with these sweeping comments? That society rules were shit back then? We all know that.

Mate, I'm not going back to the vandals or the macedonians. The concept of war crime was well known in 1945.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Conventions_of_1899_and_1907

The Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 are a series of international treaties and declarations negotiated at two international peace conferences at The Hague in the Netherlands. Along with the Geneva Conventions, the Hague Conventions were among the first formal statements of the laws of war and war crimes in the body of secular international law.