Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Justified?
about the bombing of civilians:the target was never to attack targets with number 1 priority(such things did not exist),because,accurate bombing was impossible .
All nations followed the Douhet theory,the aim of which was to attack the enemy civilians,the morale would collapse and the war would be over,thus,a new Passendale would be prevented .
Of course,the Douhet theory failed,but ,nobody could foresee this .
The RAF was only capable of area attacks,and the alternative would be to do nothing,what was unlikely to happen .
Hello IIjadw,
1. Yes - you are correct, So minus the Doolittle raid and other minor raids conducted out of China. The so called strategic bombing did actually take place from October 1944. So it was a 10 month harvest - compared to those two days.
2. Wouldn't exuse the fact of using the weapon as such - were the US and Truman anticipated a more or less immediate ending - their believes must have had a solid reason.
3. No it is not legal to kill civilians at all. The later encouraged version of targeting industrial targets was a bypassing of the international law of war via declaring them as military objectives. The Douhet doctrin does not overrule international law of war.
Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strate...r_II#United_States_strategic_bombing_of_Japan
On 14 September the French Air attaché in Warsaw reported to Paris, "the German Air Force acted in accordance to the international laws of war [...] and bombed only targets of military nature. Therefore, there is no reason for French retorsions."That day - the Jewish New Year - the Germans concentrated again on the Warsaw's Jewish population, bombing the Jewish quarter and targeting synagogues. Three days later Warsaw was surrounded by the Wehrmacht, and hundreds of thousands of leaflets were dropped on the city, instructing the citizens to evacuate the city pending a possible bomber attack. On 25 September the Luftwaffe flew 1,150 sorties and dropped 560 tonnes of high explosive and 72 tonnes of incendiaries.
4. I will just overlook that remark
5. No - civilans are protected by international law
6. Yes - but it doesn't look good if one ignores morality and international law for his own advantage - but takes others to face a criminal war court. That is what some people term as justice is defined by the victor, or history is written by the victor.
Regards
Kruska
Last edited:
Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Justified?
Without the bomb, had the invasion gone through even if only 10,000 troops had been killed, when the American public found out that they had spent $5B had been spent on a new super bomb or weapon and the president did not use it, the president would have faced the American people who would have demanded him to resign because of the public demanding that he did not protect the American troops under his command.
LeEnfield
Active member
Before the German Air force turned it's attention onto London they had already bombed Rotterdam and Warsaw into submission, also they killed 44.000 people in one raid in Russia were they used fire bomb tactics to try and destroy the defending Russian force. Also when any one says that towns were of no military value when they were bombed, well you can bet there were small factories there churning out stuff for the military in some shape or form even if it was not the finished item. In Britain it was made every where and you can bet the Germany was just the same.
Hello AVON,
yes - I agree with you, and I would say that the absolute majority will acknowledge the 3 Billion$ issue (or $5B). But that would imply that $ stand above international law of war and moral - which IMHO is not correct.
Regards
Kruska
Hello LeEnfield,
Rotterdam wasn't bombed into submission at all. Even those bombers that didn't receive the callback in time, caused damage in Rotterdam - but not near to a submission bombing - just take a look at the number of Luftwaffe Bombers involved and their payload. Holland had already forwarded capitulation before the Luftwaffe wanted to bomb Rotterdam. Even Warshaw wasn't bombed into submission - but the general Luftwaffe bombing throughout Poland helped to speed up, for the Polish to capitulate - since the Russians were moving in - and that was far more crucial to the Polish government - they couldn't be bothered about the Jewish quarters being bombed.
In regards to Russia - to what incident are you refering to? 44,000 dead due to Luftwaffe bombing would be totally impossible. The bomb load capacity of 4-5 Luftwaffe bombers equaled that of a single RAF or USAAF Bomber.
My uncle was a Gruppenkommandeur of a Luftwaffe Bomberunit in Russia, at no time did they ever exeed the number of a 150-200 bombers to be deployed towards stationary targets. More then 80% of their flights were directed towards direct ground support - meaning the bombing of military units/columns, roads and railways.
Even a 200 Luftwaffe bombers would equal that of around 60-70 Allied Bombers. And the Allies used 600-800 bombers to inflict a 30-40,000 cassulties such as Hamburg.
As for legitimisation of bombing warfare - as I already forwarded; ALL parties circumvented the issue, by declaring anything as a military target - in order to make use of terror bombing in general - aside from trying to hit industrial targets. And as such all participants commited a criminal war act.
Regards
Kruska
Last edited:
Naddoður
Active member
Not correct Kruska!
International law relating to aerial bombardment before and during World War II rests on the treaties of 1864, 1899, 1907 which constituted the definition of most of the laws of at that time. The most relevant of these treaties are the Hague Conventions of 1907 because they were the last treaties ratified before 1939 which specify the laws of war on aerial bombardment.
Of these treaties there are two which have a direct bearing on this issue of bombardment. These are
"Laws of War: Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV).
"Laws of War: Bombardment by Naval Forces in Time of War (Hague IX).
It is significant that there is a different treaty which should be invoked for bombardment of land by land (Hague IV) and of land by sea (Hague IX) International Review of the Red Cross no 323 cites: Charles Rousseau, References p. 360. "The analogy between land and aerial bombardment". Hague IV which reaffirmed and updated Hague II (1899)Laws of War: Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague II) July 29 1899, entry into force 4 September1900 contains the following clauses:
Article 25: The attack or bombardment of towns, villages, habitations or buildings which are not defended, is prohibited.
Article 26: The Commander of an attacking force, before commencing a bombardment, except in the case of an assault, should do all he can to warn the authorities.
Article 27: In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps should be taken to spare as far as possible edifices devoted to religion, art, science, and charity, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not used at the same time for military purposes.: The besieged should indicate these buildings or places by some particular and visible signs, which should previously be notified to the assailants.
In 1923 a draft convention, promoted by the United States was proposed: The Hague Rules of Air Warfare, December, 1922-February, 1923"The Hague Rules of Air Warfare, 1922-12 to 1923-02, this convention was never adopted. , There are number of articles which would have directly affected how nations used aerial bombardment and defended against it; these are articles 18, 22 and 24. It was, however, never adopted in legally binding form Rules.
In response to a League of Nations declaration against bombardment from the air Protection of Civilian Populations Against Bombing From the Air in Case of War, Unanimous resolution of the League of Nations Assembly, 30 September 1938, a draft convention in Amsterdam of 1938 Draft Convention for the Protection of Civilian Populations Against New Engines of War. Amsterdam, 1938, would have provided specific definitions of what constituted an "undefended" town, excessive civilian casualties and appropriate warning. This draft convention makes the standard of being undefended quite high - any military units or anti-aircraft within the radius qualifies a town as defended. This convention, like the 1923 draft, was not ratified, nor even close to being ratified, when hostilities broke out in Europe. While the two conventions offer a guideline to what the belligerent powers were considering before the war, neither document was legally binding.
The legality of the status of area bombardment in during World War II rested on the language of 1899 and 1907, from a time before aerial mass bombardment was possible — language which, despite repeated diplomatic attempts, was not updated in the immediate run up to the conflict.
In examining these events [Anti-city strategy/blitz] in the light of international humanitarian law, it should be borne in mind that during the Second World War there was no agreement, treaty, convention or any other instrument governing the protection of the civilian population or civilian property, as the Conventions then in force dealt only with the protection of the wounded and the sick on the battlefield and in naval warfare, hospital ships, the laws and customs of war and the protection of prisoners of war.
International Review of the Red Cross no 323, p.347-363 The Law of Air Warfare (1998)
Last edited:
I will formulate point 4 otherwise:it is inevitable that there are civilian victims in a war,and of course,that's bad for them. Military law forbids (there are of course exceptions)the intentionally killing of civilians,but not using tactics and -or weapons,which are causing,or have as by effect ,civilian casualties .Otherwise,war would be impossible .
It is also evidenr,that in a war,for a military commander,the live of enemy civilians,has less value than the live of his men .
Ex.:a military commander has as mission to conquer a city,two options :attacking with infantry or first an air attack and then the attack by the infantry.
Any military commander will choose the second option,because it will means less military casualties,although it will result in civilian casualties .
Some other points:
there was no law forbidding the use of the ABomb,thus the use was legal.
both sides were using air attacks on cities,no Luftwaffe officer was condemned after the war for these attacks,the exception being Loehr,executed after the war by Yugoslavia .
If it was legal to kill an enemy soldier,why was it not legal to attack the enemy war industry,and also the civilians producing the weapons,the railway staff,transporting the weapons,the farmers feeding the workers of the war industry,etc..?
In a modern,total war,there is no distinction berween the military and the home front .We can deplore it,but it is a fact
About international law:as long it is not approved by the parliament of a particular state,that state is not obliged to follow that international law .
That the Douhet theory was a failure (and IMHO,a waste of means,and a useless destruction of cities,and a useless killing of civilians) is a fact,but,that did not mean,that it was illegal .
I forgot, a lot of German generals were condemned by allied judges,and in a lot of cases,these condemnations were wrong :I have my doubts that the condemnation of Jodl was justified,why Jodl and not Halder,whose responsability was much greater ?.
I also doubt the justification of the accusation of crime against peace,this would mean that to wage war was a crime,and this is absurd .
I also doubt the justification of the accusation of crime against peace,this would mean that to wage war was a crime,and this is absurd .
Hello Naddoður,
thanks for sourcing the Hague Conventions of 1907 - I am familiar with it - but was kind a lazy to source for it :wink:
Art. 25. The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited.
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/195?OpenDocument
Now that Article is all there is to know - since it clearly prohibits the bombing of the named objects. And this is also the article that Hitler observed very well in the beginning of WWII.
Warshaw was a military garrison fortress - when the Wehrmacht approached, it was logically defended - and as such a bombing of Warshaw incl. Article 26 - was cleary taken account for by the Luftwaffe.
That is why the French attachee stated or declared that the Luftwaffe acted in accordance with the international law of war.
So once groundtroops get involved towards a defended city - it becomes a free go for bombardement - respectivly the airforce - respecting the hospital etc. issues. Paris or Rome were a good example by being declared as an open city - and as such no bombings took place. Defended in its meaning does not behold AA gun implacements but as in 1907 - being a city declared as a fortress or being defended against groundtroops. Due to military units defending a location, the location aka city or village becomes a military target - quite logical.
Even in WWI the term "city declared fortress" automatically had a bearing onto bombing.
Somewhere in March/April 1940 due to the RAF bombing of some German town (some say it was a propaganda lie) the Nazi's justified their own reasoning towards ignoring the Hague convention of 1907 and retaliated by bombing cities or villages in Southern England.
After the un-intensional bombing of London as history knows - London retaliated by making a bombrun onto Berlin - from thereon no-one cared about 1907 anymore.
And as such it is very correct IMHO, to state that ALL parties commited a warcrime by bombing cities that were not in a fortress or defence issue towards an enemies groundforces.
Regards
Kruska
thanks for sourcing the Hague Conventions of 1907 - I am familiar with it - but was kind a lazy to source for it :wink:
The correct article states:
Art. 25. The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited.
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/195?OpenDocument
Now that Article is all there is to know - since it clearly prohibits the bombing of the named objects. And this is also the article that Hitler observed very well in the beginning of WWII.
Warshaw was a military garrison fortress - when the Wehrmacht approached, it was logically defended - and as such a bombing of Warshaw incl. Article 26 - was cleary taken account for by the Luftwaffe.
That is why the French attachee stated or declared that the Luftwaffe acted in accordance with the international law of war.
So once groundtroops get involved towards a defended city - it becomes a free go for bombardement - respectivly the airforce - respecting the hospital etc. issues. Paris or Rome were a good example by being declared as an open city - and as such no bombings took place. Defended in its meaning does not behold AA gun implacements but as in 1907 - being a city declared as a fortress or being defended against groundtroops. Due to military units defending a location, the location aka city or village becomes a military target - quite logical.
Even in WWI the term "city declared fortress" automatically had a bearing onto bombing.
Somewhere in March/April 1940 due to the RAF bombing of some German town (some say it was a propaganda lie) the Nazi's justified their own reasoning towards ignoring the Hague convention of 1907 and retaliated by bombing cities or villages in Southern England.
After the un-intensional bombing of London as history knows - London retaliated by making a bombrun onto Berlin - from thereon no-one cared about 1907 anymore.
And as such it is very correct IMHO, to state that ALL parties commited a warcrime by bombing cities that were not in a fortress or defence issue towards an enemies groundforces.
Regards
Kruska
Last edited:
Naddoður
Active member
Article 25 applies only to bombardment from ground artillery. There was total absence of treaty law on Arial bombardment.
Quote from the International Red Cross:
In examining these events [Anti-city strategy/blitz] in the light of international humanitarian law, it should be borne in mind that during the Second World War there was no agreement, treaty, convention or any other instrument governing the protection of the civilian population or civilian property, as the Conventions then in force dealt only with the protection of the wounded and the sick on the battlefield and in naval warfare, hospital ships, the laws and customs of war and the protection of prisoners of war.
The Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, commonly referred to as the Fourth Geneva Convention was adopted in August 1949, and defines humanitarian protections for civilians in a war zone, and outlaws the practice of total war.
Wich i think is interesting that international politics came down to the kid thing of "But they did the same!" and "If they do that we are allowed to do that too!". In my eyes a big fault.
What also somehow depresses me is that only the loosers of war have been juged for theyr war crimes and not also the winners. The one and only thing people who commit war crimes learn is that "as long as you win you can do what you want", wich in my eyes just leads to everybody hitting harder against civilians and stuff.
If you agree or got something to prove me wrong please let me know.
What also somehow depresses me is that only the loosers of war have been juged for theyr war crimes and not also the winners. The one and only thing people who commit war crimes learn is that "as long as you win you can do what you want", wich in my eyes just leads to everybody hitting harder against civilians and stuff.
If you agree or got something to prove me wrong please let me know.
Hello Naddoður,
No, perhaps you answered before I inserted the correct article:
The correct article states:
Art. 25. The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited.
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/195?OpenDocument
Also please keep in mind that it is not about what weapons are to be used - but it is about "undefended" locations - logically due to the issues I forwarded earlier on.
As for WWI - cities were bombed also way behind Frontlines - such as London or Freiburg - also nobody seemed to be bothered - the same would go for toxic or poisenous gases - also no one cared. It streches right onto phosphorus ammo, napalm - landmines especially designed towards civilians, right up to plutonium enriched ammo. It certainly includes nuke weapons since these are deemed to kill civilians at random - not to mention a neutron bomb.
But ignoring or acting against the 1907 convention is still committing a war criminal act.
Regards
Kruska
Last edited:
Naddoður
Active member
Have you read this
International Review of the Red Cross no 323, p.347-363 The Law of Air Warfare (1998)
Conclusion of the Red Cross
In examining these events [Anti-city strategy/blitz] in the light of international humanitarian law, it should be borne in mind that during the Second World War there was no agreement, treaty, convention or any other instrument governing the protection of the civilian population or civilian property, as the Conventions then in force dealt only with the protection of the wounded and the sick on the battlefield and in naval warfare, hospital ships, the laws and customs of war and the protection of prisoners of war.
International Review of the Red Cross no 323, p.347-363 The Law of Air Warfare (1998)
Conclusion of the Red Cross
In examining these events [Anti-city strategy/blitz] in the light of international humanitarian law, it should be borne in mind that during the Second World War there was no agreement, treaty, convention or any other instrument governing the protection of the civilian population or civilian property, as the Conventions then in force dealt only with the protection of the wounded and the sick on the battlefield and in naval warfare, hospital ships, the laws and customs of war and the protection of prisoners of war.
Hello Naddoður,
like I already forwarded - I believe to be quite familiar with international war laws and regulations. The main objective of the Hague convention was to regulate the conduct of war, and the protection of civilians.
It is understood that in 1907 no one was able to explicitly define aerial warfare - however it was never updated and ratified accordingly - meaning that the previous signatories would still be obliged towards the 1907 version.
Kind off ironic to upkeep a 1907 version - in order to feel free to "interprete" the newly developed aerial warfare accordingly. If the signatories would have cancelled their previous acknowledgement - then indeed they would have been free to do whatever they deemed appropriate - but they didn't.
Source:
http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/iwpList200/42F64C9A4212EA07C1256B66005C0BF1
The Greco-German arbitration tribunal (1927-30), which condemned Germany for the aerial bombardment of the neutral cities of Salonica and Bucharest in 1916, invoking Hague Convention II of 1899 respecting the laws and customs of war on land. The tribunal considered that Article 25, prohibiting “bombardment of towns (...) which are not defended”, and Article 26, requiring “the commander of an attacking force, before commencing a bombardment (...) to warn the authorities”, applied.
So you can see - that towards the looser of WWI it was indeed applied or brought forward - however no allied commander was condemned for doing the same thing.
Arguments brought forward by Harris - such as the reduction of AA guns able to participate in ground warfare - now having to be used in the defense of German cities - is partially logical - but it doesn't alter the fact that Cologne was certainly not a city being defended towards ground troops - neither was London - as such both sides commited war criminal acts.
In 1907 it was obvious that a city or location would be subjected to an attack - basically via a land or sea attack. The defender had two choices - give up the city or defend it - in the latter case the attacker would have the right to attack or bombard the city by whatever means. (Yet under certain restrictions - such as a church)
If on one hand the RAF, USAAF or Luftwaffe, etc. was not able to conduct a precision bombing - thus destroying a church - it would already have acted against the 1907 resolution.
On the other hand - IIRC, the 1899 version already mentioned the restriction of using rockets or bombardments via baloons.
Regards
Kruska
Last edited:
Well: The most expensive "project" of WWII from the US was not the Manhattan project. It was the B-29.
The B-29, employed by the will of Curtis Le May, would have rained serious destruction upon Japan. It had already caused more ruin than the two atomic weapons, q.v.
Whether it was legal or not, Everybody had bombers and everybody used them to murder civilians. The idea that it was illegal to use the nuclear bombs is about the same, ethically, as saying it was illegal to use any sort of bomb. A moot issue. Japan visited unimaginable cruelty upon allied POWs because Japan was not a signatory of the Hague convention or the Geneva convention, so, as an outlaw nation, Japan had no claim on anything legal or otherwise. Yes, Japan got a bum deal on the Washington Strategic Arms Limitation treaty. (Err-whatever.) {Yes, it would have been wonderful to put all the lawyers on an island with some rocks and let them decide what is legal and what is not in war.}
Shortly after Japanese naval forces murdered thousands of Americans at Pearl Harbor, in a massacre committed without a declaration of war and which had been planned to be conducted before the victims knew there was declaration of war, Admiral Halsey returned. While the smoke was still pouring out of the US Battleships, he is quoted to have said:
"When this is over, the only place where the Japanese language is spoken will be hell."
Had the "war weary" US attacked the home islands in a conventional invasion, the Japanese would have defended ferociously. As the Japanese escalated in their desperation and brutality, so to would the US. Off the coast of Japan was something like 100 Aircraft Carriers, a dozen Battleships, and thousands of Cruisers and Destroyers, all built since Pearl Harbor. They did not come to sit and look pretty. They came to visit vengeance on Japan. Pure, brutal, simple, and real.
There was only one outcome: the Destruction of Japan, and quite possibly the annihilation of Japan as well.
Rules of Engagement are not new, but only with the specter of nuclear enforcement has anyone really paid attention to them.
With 20-20 hindsight, the use of Atomic weapons saved millions of lives, US and Japanese.
The Specter of the Atomic bomb has saved even more millions as we had a "cold" war instead of WWIII.
There is only one "Justification" in a war: Does it lead to victory?
Would Churchill, or Stalin, or Hitler, or Mussolini, or Tojo had hesitated more than an eye-bat?
The B-29, employed by the will of Curtis Le May, would have rained serious destruction upon Japan. It had already caused more ruin than the two atomic weapons, q.v.
Whether it was legal or not, Everybody had bombers and everybody used them to murder civilians. The idea that it was illegal to use the nuclear bombs is about the same, ethically, as saying it was illegal to use any sort of bomb. A moot issue. Japan visited unimaginable cruelty upon allied POWs because Japan was not a signatory of the Hague convention or the Geneva convention, so, as an outlaw nation, Japan had no claim on anything legal or otherwise. Yes, Japan got a bum deal on the Washington Strategic Arms Limitation treaty. (Err-whatever.) {Yes, it would have been wonderful to put all the lawyers on an island with some rocks and let them decide what is legal and what is not in war.}
Shortly after Japanese naval forces murdered thousands of Americans at Pearl Harbor, in a massacre committed without a declaration of war and which had been planned to be conducted before the victims knew there was declaration of war, Admiral Halsey returned. While the smoke was still pouring out of the US Battleships, he is quoted to have said:
"When this is over, the only place where the Japanese language is spoken will be hell."
Had the "war weary" US attacked the home islands in a conventional invasion, the Japanese would have defended ferociously. As the Japanese escalated in their desperation and brutality, so to would the US. Off the coast of Japan was something like 100 Aircraft Carriers, a dozen Battleships, and thousands of Cruisers and Destroyers, all built since Pearl Harbor. They did not come to sit and look pretty. They came to visit vengeance on Japan. Pure, brutal, simple, and real.
There was only one outcome: the Destruction of Japan, and quite possibly the annihilation of Japan as well.
Rules of Engagement are not new, but only with the specter of nuclear enforcement has anyone really paid attention to them.
With 20-20 hindsight, the use of Atomic weapons saved millions of lives, US and Japanese.
The Specter of the Atomic bomb has saved even more millions as we had a "cold" war instead of WWIII.
There is only one "Justification" in a war: Does it lead to victory?
Would Churchill, or Stalin, or Hitler, or Mussolini, or Tojo had hesitated more than an eye-bat?
LeEnfield
Active member
Lets face it they could have called a halt after the first bomb, but no they decided to carry on fighting and even after the second one there was a large group that wanted to carry on the war. If there was a war crime it was those people who did not want to surrender and wanted the war to continue.
Chukpike
Banned
Just a general observation:
16 July 1945 - First atomic bomb test at Alamogordo, NM.
(65 years ago today)
Source:
http://www.history.navy.mil/wars/datesjul.htm
16 July 1945 - First atomic bomb test at Alamogordo, NM.
(65 years ago today)
Source:
http://www.history.navy.mil/wars/datesjul.htm