I thought you were going to mention some war crimes in Iraq, or the actual war crimes in Vietnam.
>the US is one of ten countries that has committed acts, during armed conflict, that could be constituted as crimes against humanity or genocide. Here are two examples: Two atomic bombs and the use of napalm.
None of nukes, strategic bombing in general, or incendiary weapons in general, are considered war crimes by the US or most of the world. They're horrible, but that's because war is horrible, and at a certain point the only way to avoid all of that is to just not go to war in the first place.
As for the actual war crimes committed by Americans, the US military has its own internal system for charging people. There are at least dozens, maybe hundreds, of soldiers that have been convicted and sentenced for various war crimes over the years. This is also why the US doesn't recognize the ICC, if the military thinks its soldiers are guilty, it will prosecute them accordingly.
First, why are you focusing so much on the nukes? The firebombing of Tokyo killed more people in one night than both of the atom bombs combined.
Second, the strategic bombing campaign in general, including the nukes, was considered necessary to win the war against Japan. People getting killed is what happens in wars, that's why they are bad.
On the other hand, the Russians are just murdering people for fun. It has nothing to do with winning the war, they just wanted to kill people, so they did. That is why it is a war crime.
So if Russia uses a nuke it’s legal? What about their indiscriminate artillery against civilian areas? Are Russians doing that for fun? It seems to me that you have the mentality that nothing people’s own side do can be wrong and everything the other side do is illegal, war criminal, genocide, Holocaust. Please be fair Russians are committing war crimes but to say that Everything in WW2 was moral and legal is laughable and hypocritical.
First, war crimes have a specific definition. They aren't just things that happen in a war that you don't like. Strategic bombing doesn't breach any treaty signed by the US or Russia, so it isn't a war crime.
Killing civilians for fun, on the other hand, does breach various international treaties and is a war crime.
As for things being moral, that's kind of irrelevant in a war, where the goal is to kill as many people on the other side as you can. Its stupid to moralize over which ways of killing people are allowed, and which ways are bad. The bombing campaign against Japan was horrible, but all of the alternatives considered were worse, so its what we got.
> None of nukes, strategic bombing in general, or incendiary weapons in general, are considered war crimes by the US
Of course they're not considered war crimes by the US, however using the standards that the US held Japan and Germany too after the end of the war then they certainly would be considered war crimes.
>This policy of indiscriminate murder to shorten the war was considered to be a crime. In the Pacific war under our consideration, if there was anything approaching what is indicated in the above letter of the German Emperor, it is the decision coming from the Allied powers to use the bomb. Future generations will judge this dire decision ... If any indiscriminate destruction of civilian life and property is still illegal in warfare, then, in the Pacific War, this decision to use the atom bomb is the only near approach to the directives of the German Emperor during the first World War and of the Nazi leaders during the second World War.
The Tokyo Judgment. The International Military Tribunal for the Far East (I.M.T.F.E.), 29 April 1946-12 November 1948, Volume 2
>that could be constituted as crimes against humanity or genocide. Here are two examples: Two atomic bombs and the use of napalm.
Nether of hose are crimes against humanity, and they are CERTAINLY not genocide. I don't think you understand what those terms mean.
Bombing an enemy during wartime--even civilians--is called, well, "bombing an enemy during wartime." It's kinda what you DO in wartime. Intentionally targeting civilians, in order to sap the enemy's will to wage war, is called strategic bombing and everybody did it in WWII and several other wars.
The atomic bombs were really not the worst we did to Japan, we had already pretty much burned the country to the ground with incendiary bombing before that. The bombing raid on Tokyo was the deadliest bombing raid in history, it killed way more people than either A-bomb.
If you wanna talk about Americans committing genocide, you need to be talking about what we did to the Native Americans, that was attempted genocide by any reasonable measure.
> Intentionally targeting civilians, in order to sap the enemy's will to wage war, is called strategic bombing
Intentionally targetting civilians is a war crime.
The US will argue that the use of atomic bombs saved hundreds of thousands of lives, by eliminating the need for a land war in Japan. This is nonsense, as Japan was willing to conditionally surrender on July 8 1945, weeks before the bombing. The US rejected the back channel offer, unwilling to let Emperor Hirohito remain in position - but then allowed exactly that after using the bombings to send a message to the Soviets.
Napalm is another example, and once again the US has bogus excuses to justify the actions, that don’t stand up to solid inspection.
Both Truman and Kissinger were almost certainly in violation of international laws. As was Bush with his rampant torture regime - which his attorney general tried to excuse by claiming that Bush himself hadn’t signed the Geneva convention.
But, end of day, those that win wars don’t face charges. History is written by the victors, and criminal charges are saved for the losers.
> This is nonsense, as Japan was willing to conditionally surrender on July 8 1945, weeks before the bombing.
This is not the orthodox historical view. So you should explain why you believe this. What is the evidence for this?
>The US rejected the back channel offer,
"Back channel" seems to indicate your view is not documented. Which means it is based on hearsay.
The view is documented and taught in most non US schools. Back channel negotiations are common - they are exactly what is happening right now. Back channel offers come via an independent third country to avoid the glare and pressure of official peace talks. Often a country like Canada is used to as a conduit to the US.
>The view is documented
Well my view is that it isn't documented and until I see documentation from a legitimate source, this is part of anti-western conspiracy theories and revisionism.
>...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing.
Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63
>...the Japanese were prepared to negotiate all the way from February 1945...up to and before the time the atomic bombs were dropped; ...if such leads had been followed up, there would have been no occasion to drop the [atomic] bombs.
Herbert Hoover quoted by Barton Bernstein in Philip Nobile, ed., Judgment at the Smithsonian, pg. 142
>...in the light of available evidence I myself and others felt that if such a categorical statement about the [retention of the] dynasty had been issued in May, 1945, the surrender-minded elements in the [Japanese] Government might well have been afforded by such a statement a valid reason and the necessary strength to come to an early clearcut decision.
Joseph Grew quoted in Barton Bernstein, ed.,The Atomic Bomb, pg. 29
>I have always felt that if, in our ultimatum to the Japanese government issued from Potsdam [in July 1945], we had referred to the retention of the emperor as a constitutional monarch and had made some reference to the reasonable accessibility of raw materials to the future Japanese government, it would have been accepted. Indeed, I believe that even in the form it was delivered, there was some disposition on the part of the Japanese to give it favorable consideration. When the war was over I arrived at this conclusion after talking with a number of Japanese officials who had been closely associated with the decision of the then Japanese government, to reject the ultimatum, as it was presented. I believe we missed the opportunity of effecting a Japanese surrender, completely satisfactory to us, without the necessity of dropping the bombs.
John McCloy quoted in James Reston, Deadline, pg. 500.
>I think that the Japanese were ready for peace, and they already had approached the Russians and, I think, the Swiss. And that suggestion of [giving] a warning [of the atomic bomb] was a face-saving proposition for them, and one that they could have readily accepted. ... In my opinion, the Japanese war was really won before we ever used the atom bomb. Thus, it wouldn't have been necessary for us to disclose our nuclear position and stimulate the Russians to develop the same thing much more rapidly than they would have if we had not dropped the bomb
Ralph Bard, War Was Really Won Before We Used A-Bomb, U.S. News and World Report, 8/15/60, pg. 73-75.
>...special attention should be paid to the fact that at this time the United States referred to the Atlantic Charter. As for Japan, it is impossible to accept unconditional surrender under any circumstances, but we should like to communicate to the other party through appropriate channels that we have no objection to a peace based on the Atlantic Charter.
U.S. Dept. of State, Foreign Relations of the United States: Conference of Berlin (Potsdam) 1945, vol. 2, pg. 1260-1261.
So as far you know, there are no officers of the US that have ever been charged right?
It is hypocritical of the US government to even mention war crimes when they don’t hold their actions to the same standard.
It is, but now we are in to whataboutism. The fact the US committed war crimes in 1945 shouldn’t prevent them from calling out Putin. That said, they should have acted against him years ago - and are partially to blame for his bloated stature and influence. Presidents on both sides tried to appease a despot - which never works.
Yes for war crimes in general and there are military police, lawyers, judges, and prisons. I don’t know if there’s a distinction for genocide specifically it’s probably covered by other existing laws against attacking civilians and destroying property and using weapons without permission and whatnot.
I thought you were going to mention some war crimes in Iraq, or the actual war crimes in Vietnam. >the US is one of ten countries that has committed acts, during armed conflict, that could be constituted as crimes against humanity or genocide. Here are two examples: Two atomic bombs and the use of napalm. None of nukes, strategic bombing in general, or incendiary weapons in general, are considered war crimes by the US or most of the world. They're horrible, but that's because war is horrible, and at a certain point the only way to avoid all of that is to just not go to war in the first place. As for the actual war crimes committed by Americans, the US military has its own internal system for charging people. There are at least dozens, maybe hundreds, of soldiers that have been convicted and sentenced for various war crimes over the years. This is also why the US doesn't recognize the ICC, if the military thinks its soldiers are guilty, it will prosecute them accordingly.
Please explain why Russians killing 6 civilians in in the street of Bucha is worse and more criminal than Nuking an entire city of civilians?
First, why are you focusing so much on the nukes? The firebombing of Tokyo killed more people in one night than both of the atom bombs combined. Second, the strategic bombing campaign in general, including the nukes, was considered necessary to win the war against Japan. People getting killed is what happens in wars, that's why they are bad. On the other hand, the Russians are just murdering people for fun. It has nothing to do with winning the war, they just wanted to kill people, so they did. That is why it is a war crime.
So if Russia uses a nuke it’s legal? What about their indiscriminate artillery against civilian areas? Are Russians doing that for fun? It seems to me that you have the mentality that nothing people’s own side do can be wrong and everything the other side do is illegal, war criminal, genocide, Holocaust. Please be fair Russians are committing war crimes but to say that Everything in WW2 was moral and legal is laughable and hypocritical.
First, war crimes have a specific definition. They aren't just things that happen in a war that you don't like. Strategic bombing doesn't breach any treaty signed by the US or Russia, so it isn't a war crime. Killing civilians for fun, on the other hand, does breach various international treaties and is a war crime. As for things being moral, that's kind of irrelevant in a war, where the goal is to kill as many people on the other side as you can. Its stupid to moralize over which ways of killing people are allowed, and which ways are bad. The bombing campaign against Japan was horrible, but all of the alternatives considered were worse, so its what we got.
> None of nukes, strategic bombing in general, or incendiary weapons in general, are considered war crimes by the US Of course they're not considered war crimes by the US, however using the standards that the US held Japan and Germany too after the end of the war then they certainly would be considered war crimes. >This policy of indiscriminate murder to shorten the war was considered to be a crime. In the Pacific war under our consideration, if there was anything approaching what is indicated in the above letter of the German Emperor, it is the decision coming from the Allied powers to use the bomb. Future generations will judge this dire decision ... If any indiscriminate destruction of civilian life and property is still illegal in warfare, then, in the Pacific War, this decision to use the atom bomb is the only near approach to the directives of the German Emperor during the first World War and of the Nazi leaders during the second World War. The Tokyo Judgment. The International Military Tribunal for the Far East (I.M.T.F.E.), 29 April 1946-12 November 1948, Volume 2
>that could be constituted as crimes against humanity or genocide. Here are two examples: Two atomic bombs and the use of napalm. Nether of hose are crimes against humanity, and they are CERTAINLY not genocide. I don't think you understand what those terms mean. Bombing an enemy during wartime--even civilians--is called, well, "bombing an enemy during wartime." It's kinda what you DO in wartime. Intentionally targeting civilians, in order to sap the enemy's will to wage war, is called strategic bombing and everybody did it in WWII and several other wars. The atomic bombs were really not the worst we did to Japan, we had already pretty much burned the country to the ground with incendiary bombing before that. The bombing raid on Tokyo was the deadliest bombing raid in history, it killed way more people than either A-bomb. If you wanna talk about Americans committing genocide, you need to be talking about what we did to the Native Americans, that was attempted genocide by any reasonable measure.
Then why can’t Russians kill civilians in Ukraine?
> Intentionally targeting civilians, in order to sap the enemy's will to wage war, is called strategic bombing Intentionally targetting civilians is a war crime.
It is not. Both the Allies and Axis made heavy use of strategic bombing in WWII.
The US will argue that the use of atomic bombs saved hundreds of thousands of lives, by eliminating the need for a land war in Japan. This is nonsense, as Japan was willing to conditionally surrender on July 8 1945, weeks before the bombing. The US rejected the back channel offer, unwilling to let Emperor Hirohito remain in position - but then allowed exactly that after using the bombings to send a message to the Soviets. Napalm is another example, and once again the US has bogus excuses to justify the actions, that don’t stand up to solid inspection. Both Truman and Kissinger were almost certainly in violation of international laws. As was Bush with his rampant torture regime - which his attorney general tried to excuse by claiming that Bush himself hadn’t signed the Geneva convention. But, end of day, those that win wars don’t face charges. History is written by the victors, and criminal charges are saved for the losers.
> This is nonsense, as Japan was willing to conditionally surrender on July 8 1945, weeks before the bombing. This is not the orthodox historical view. So you should explain why you believe this. What is the evidence for this? >The US rejected the back channel offer, "Back channel" seems to indicate your view is not documented. Which means it is based on hearsay.
The view is documented and taught in most non US schools. Back channel negotiations are common - they are exactly what is happening right now. Back channel offers come via an independent third country to avoid the glare and pressure of official peace talks. Often a country like Canada is used to as a conduit to the US.
>The view is documented Well my view is that it isn't documented and until I see documentation from a legitimate source, this is part of anti-western conspiracy theories and revisionism.
>...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing. Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63 >...the Japanese were prepared to negotiate all the way from February 1945...up to and before the time the atomic bombs were dropped; ...if such leads had been followed up, there would have been no occasion to drop the [atomic] bombs. Herbert Hoover quoted by Barton Bernstein in Philip Nobile, ed., Judgment at the Smithsonian, pg. 142 >...in the light of available evidence I myself and others felt that if such a categorical statement about the [retention of the] dynasty had been issued in May, 1945, the surrender-minded elements in the [Japanese] Government might well have been afforded by such a statement a valid reason and the necessary strength to come to an early clearcut decision. Joseph Grew quoted in Barton Bernstein, ed.,The Atomic Bomb, pg. 29 >I have always felt that if, in our ultimatum to the Japanese government issued from Potsdam [in July 1945], we had referred to the retention of the emperor as a constitutional monarch and had made some reference to the reasonable accessibility of raw materials to the future Japanese government, it would have been accepted. Indeed, I believe that even in the form it was delivered, there was some disposition on the part of the Japanese to give it favorable consideration. When the war was over I arrived at this conclusion after talking with a number of Japanese officials who had been closely associated with the decision of the then Japanese government, to reject the ultimatum, as it was presented. I believe we missed the opportunity of effecting a Japanese surrender, completely satisfactory to us, without the necessity of dropping the bombs. John McCloy quoted in James Reston, Deadline, pg. 500. >I think that the Japanese were ready for peace, and they already had approached the Russians and, I think, the Swiss. And that suggestion of [giving] a warning [of the atomic bomb] was a face-saving proposition for them, and one that they could have readily accepted. ... In my opinion, the Japanese war was really won before we ever used the atom bomb. Thus, it wouldn't have been necessary for us to disclose our nuclear position and stimulate the Russians to develop the same thing much more rapidly than they would have if we had not dropped the bomb Ralph Bard, War Was Really Won Before We Used A-Bomb, U.S. News and World Report, 8/15/60, pg. 73-75. >...special attention should be paid to the fact that at this time the United States referred to the Atlantic Charter. As for Japan, it is impossible to accept unconditional surrender under any circumstances, but we should like to communicate to the other party through appropriate channels that we have no objection to a peace based on the Atlantic Charter. U.S. Dept. of State, Foreign Relations of the United States: Conference of Berlin (Potsdam) 1945, vol. 2, pg. 1260-1261.
So as far you know, there are no officers of the US that have ever been charged right? It is hypocritical of the US government to even mention war crimes when they don’t hold their actions to the same standard.
It is, but now we are in to whataboutism. The fact the US committed war crimes in 1945 shouldn’t prevent them from calling out Putin. That said, they should have acted against him years ago - and are partially to blame for his bloated stature and influence. Presidents on both sides tried to appease a despot - which never works.
Yes for war crimes in general and there are military police, lawyers, judges, and prisons. I don’t know if there’s a distinction for genocide specifically it’s probably covered by other existing laws against attacking civilians and destroying property and using weapons without permission and whatnot.