Would you consider the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki war crimes?
>>606858
>you consider
Why in the fuck is anybody on 4chan's "consideration" of humanities value? Take your opinion and fucking shove it.
Anyone who says it is a warcrime is usually a rabid america hater or a soviet junkie. Japs were willing to fight to the death both the US and the USSR because even if in reality their other terms of surrender weren't really feasible anyway, they were truly suicidal about their status of the Emperor. If anything the nuke strikes spared not only American lives, but Chinese and Russian lives as any Soviet-Japanese war would've been just as devastating. And the communists would have never have kept the emperor in power.
>>606884
Thanks you're very helpful.
>>606935
More helpful than your off-topic post mate.
posting this preemptively because its what every one of these threads turns into
>>606931
How is it possible to be this wrong.
>>606858
No Becuse they wloud not quit and its payback for Nanking
>>606858
Tokyo bombings and Dresden bombings should both be called war crimes before those are considered. They were worse in every way
More people died in the firebombing of Tokyo than any single bomb. Dresden was even worse than that.
War crime is redundant. War is war.
>>607279
>muh dresden meme
4000 tons of explosives unloaded on Dresden, killed ~30,000 people over two days. The Little Boy meanwhile was rated at 16,000 tons of TNT and killed ~80,000 at once.
So tell me in what way the Dresden bombing was worse than Hiroshima. Since it is worse in every way, I'm sure you can come up with a few.
"War crime" actually has a legal definition.
There were certainly no treaties against it, and nothing in the laws and customs of war prohibited it.
So any sensible legal metric, it wasn't. This is not synonymous with morality, but OP is probably just trying to get faggots arguing with each other.
>>606858
>Would you consider the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki war crimes?
No.
Why would I?
>>606858
I consider the dropping of bombs to be the thing that stopped the war.
Also the point where humanity started to appreciate radiation - and all the radio-isotopes which we use today were researched.
Radiation gave us the modern life and the comfort of it.. you guys should read sometimes about radioisotopes and their usage in ... well .. .everything.
>>607307
Agreed. All these legalities do is water down the definition of war to a conventional, symmetrical conflict with limited context. Ratifying somehow makes it the action internationally feasible. A cake with a cherry on top is still a cake.
>>607317
autism, the post
>>607325
At some point one of your relatives most likely survived because of the usage of radioisotopes in medicine. You should be less ignorant and more involved in research and developing of your scientific background...
But why I am writing this you're underage most likely.
>>607343
all my relatives... are dead...
>>606858
The term "War crime" is an arbitrary, imaginary invention of the late 19th century.
So sure, they could be considered war crimes.
You people with your black and white perspectives. Yes, it was absolutely a heinous war crime, and a lot of good came of it.
What do you want, OP? Perfect world?
>>606858
Does it matter? It was worth it to see the fireworks
>>607374
Uh, there were conceptions of criminality in war long before this. Undue rape of towns & their inhabitants. Killing of emissaries. Failure to accept unconditional surrender.
Plenty of crimes. War crimes have tended to be those that impede the business of war itself though.
>>606858
Since they were used to end the war, no. However, if we ever used nukes as a first strike, I would absolutely call it a war crime.
>>606931
>Soviet-Japanese war would've been just as devastating
for Sixth army in Khalkhin Gol
In the grand scope of things the atomic bombings didn't do all that much physical damage compared to the firebombings and other aerial campaigns such as Stalingrad and Dresden, hell Stalingrad looked like it was nuked by the time the battle was over.
The Atom Bomb was just a spectacle, an overwhelming show of force to instill complete fear and hopelessness in the enemy. and with that it worked,
but considering dresden, tokyo, the London Blitz and all other campaigns have already been carried out to much more deadly results than the atomic bombings, the US saw it as fair game like all the others.
>>606858
Don't start no Shit
Won't be no Shit
>>607653
>but considering dresden, tokyo, the London Blitz and all other campaigns have already been carried out to much more deadly results than the atomic bombings
Dresden = 3000 tons of explosives dropped, ~30,000 dead
London Blitz = ~40,000 dead over 8 months
Tokyo = ~80,000 to ~200,000 dead over 2 years
Hiroshima and Nagasaki = ~140,000 to ~240,000 dead after two bombs.
So explain to me by what metric you consider Dresden, Tokyo, and London Blitz to have been more deadly.
The only crime is that they didn't hang the Emperor and his entire government afterward.
>>607403
Funny enough, last I recall both Russia and the United States have stepped away from second strike only as an official policy.
no
if it were my mission, I'd do it, and feel damned proud to have done it
is one sortie more a sortie than another?
>>607260
except he is completely correct
get fucked commie
>>607279
>MUH DRESDEN
30,000 people died in Dresden AT MOST
40,000 died in Hamburg and Cologne
and 100,000 in Berlin
fuck off with that shit
>>606858
Yes, but dealing with rice-niggers isnt an black and white situation either
>>607615
devastating for the Japs, clearly.
>>607347
Cool, batman
>>606858
>gr8 b8 m8 i r8 8.8
>>607941
Whew lad.
Learn2 greentext.
>>607672
Entire nations destroyed vs 2 cities
>>607978
But entire nations weren't destroyed. just coming out with something like that when he just gave the comparitive figures is, frankly, silly.
>>606858
No.
>>608010
>But entire nations weren't destroyed.
wut......
many nations were destroyed, figuratively and literally. Japan suffered no ground invasion.
Poland, Germany itself, parts of Ukraine and Russia, parts of China. some of these countries were not only erased from the map (Germany), but their entire economies went from okay, to negatives, to non-existant, by the time the war was over. their entire governments were dismantled (Poland, Germany, Ukraine, most of eastern Europe).
That's a destroyed nation
>>608081
>lighting a cigar with a zippo
Gross. I don't even mean that in the "your tastes are inferior" way. I mean that in the plain old "that's kind of nasty" way. That's a good way to enjoy a smoke that tastes like burning petroleum products.
>>608096
Bombs Away Lemay doesn't give a shit.
Too busy overseeing the big bomber command in the sky ;_;7.
If anything's a war crime, killing untold civilians should certainly count, but fire bombings also did that. I don't know. I'd say it's the new face of war, but there were plenty of sieges and the like, back in the day, which resulted in indiscriminate slaughter and murder. It's the way of war.
>>608093
I see. If you were going to make a brand new argument that needed detail to explain what you were talking about why make it in a five word cryptic post in a reply to someone talking about aerial campaigns? But whatever.
Trying to use the scale and the effects of the entire war doesn't seem sound, at all, that's like saying torturing and shooting prisoners isn't a war crime because hey look what happened to China.
>>608136
>brand new argument
What...Just because I stumped you means its new? its a valid point.
Should the Atomic Bombs be the center of attention for the entire WW2? No, and I think that's the point of this thread. I don't think its a war crime. Why would I think that?
>>608140
I'm not even the person that was talking about aerial campaigns. I just queried what the hell you were on about.
>Should the Atomic Bombs be the center of attention for the entire WW2? No, and I think that's the point of this thread.
That's just childish, whatever given topic in WW2 a thread was about if someone didn't like it they could say "why are we making this the centre of attention?".
> I don't think its a war crime. Why would I think that?
Well the central question is whether the specific military action and the number of civilian deaths it causes is proportionate to the military goals. That's what needs to be discussed.
Personally I am not sure either way, but there's no point just making bad irrelevant points that don't pertain to the central question.
>>608158
>whether the specific military action and the number of civilian deaths it causes is proportionate to the military goals.
That's not the central question
>That's what needs to be discussed.
Why, exactly? What difference will your decision on this conundrum make?
>>608169
>That's not the central question
Why not?
It's a well recognised international principle.
https://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_cha_chapter4_rule14
>>608176
I don't know. You made the assertion that it was the central question. Why should the question be total fatalities versus right course of action?
What's a well recognized principal? Gonna have to elaborate better than "it".
I believe the central question instead should be
>Will this decision bring the war to an end?
Because it achieves the goal, which is to end a war that you are playing a defense part in
>>608184
>what's a well recognised principle.
Proportionality in attack, I provided a link.
Basically it's not a war crime to kill civilians as collateral damage in war but it is a war crime to kill civilians for no reason or disproportionately kill civilians indiscriminately for something that is not militarily justified.
Obviously whether it is the "right course of action" is what we are discussing when dealing with that.
>Because it achieves the goal, which is to end a war that you are playing a defense part in
Well now you are getting there. Like I say I am a "fence-sitter" on this issue, I actually lean to the "not a war crime" side but with some doubts. The important issues revolve around what where the military goals of the US were and what was achieved and whether the mass civilian casualties of the specific actions of dropping the bombs was proportionate to that.
>>608213
>what was achieved
A signing of a peace treaty
What else could you really want in a war that had a hazy unforeseeable future?
>>608240
>A signing of a peace treaty
Right. You're back to making really complicated arguments in five or six words that don't enlighten at all.
Are you building a case that the US could not have won and got a peace treaty without dropping the nukes?
One of the key issues for me is whether the US would have had to invade Japan to win. That would have obviously caused massive deaths on both sides so if that is the case dropping the bombs is justified.
Anyway I'll leave it there, I don't have an axe to grind particularly on this issue. I am lurking the thread looking for good arguments either way because it interests me. I sort of dragged myself into a discussion with you because I queried a post that made no sense and then you started making other bad arguments at me.
Hopefully we've bumped the thread a bit to encourage discussion.
>>606858
>Would you consider the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki war crimes?
yes, those were war crimes.
>>607978
Dresden bombing destroyed entire nations? News to me.
>>606858
>We have this thread somewhere on 4chan every week
>Same picture
As a Japanese, please fuck off
Topic is so overdone
>>608741
this
we got waifus out of it
so 100% worth it
Would you kill an innocent to save 10 others?
Would that make it a crime? Same except scaled 1000000x on 1:4 ratio
>>608282
you do realize that if we didn't, we would've invaded with millions of men from the finished European front and the Japanese emperor would've told his subjects to kill themselves, resulting in a dead nation, right?
>>608282
>don't drop
>invade
>get millions killed instead of thousands
what you think the Japs would just roll over if we landed?
>>611282
it's certainly a much faster way to get the japs to surrender, however it went.
but there's also another thing about russians invading japan that would make them drop their panties and make a run for it. it'll take a couple of months or years before stalin declares a full scale war to japan beyond border skirmishes and get them to surrender as soon as possible.
>oy vey the tiny yellow men with bamboosticks will kill gorrillion anglosaxons if we dont nuke them!
>>606931
Yes
Anyone who even asks if the atomic bombings were war crimes but doesn't bring up the general concept of strategic bombing is an idiot IMHO.
>>614308
So are you saying all strategic bombing is a war crime?
Now it would be but back then I don't think that the provisions that make it one were implemented until after the second world war
>>614319
No, I'm saying anyone who differentiates between the atomic bombings and strategic bombing in general is an idiot.
>>606858
Why not ask about the murderous, genocidal rampage Japan took out on the rest of Southeast Asia? Das est not war crime? Not that it justifies anything in any way, but Imperial Japan (specifically under Hirohito) were barbaric murderers. They were brutal, seriously. Why else do you think a full scale invasion of mainland Japan was chalked up as a last resort to be avoided at all costs?
>drop two nukes
>Japan is now the most modern and developed country in Asia and incredibly ahead of its neighbors China and Korea.
hurdur nuke wuz so bad
>>614525
Too bad America didn't build schools in Afghanistan. Spending as much to rebuild a country as you put into fighting a war there seems to pay off in the long run.
>>614487
I think much of the strategic bombing in WW2 does count as war crime(s).
However it depends on the specific tactics and goals of the strategic bombing campaign. Attacking factories use to produce military weaponary through strategic bombing is not a war crime
>>614525
It is not very clear that the military goal of dropping the nuclear bombs was to kickstart the Japanese economy.
Is it possible to provide a reliable historical source that this was the US' goal?
>>614538
>Too bad America didn't build schools in Afghanistan. Spending as much to rebuild a country as you put into fighting a war there seems to pay off in the long run.
We'd also need Allah to go on radio and say that he's fake.
>>614563
I disagree, the clear intent was to subjugate Japan under US Capitalist control for the incoming Cold War rather than let it fall to Soviet hands or influence.
Now why would the USA want this? Because they believed they had the correct economic model and were the right ones to save the world from the dangers of communism.
No doubt the methods were extreme and it would have been ethically questionable back then (albeit in grand hindsight it wasn't at all ethically incorrect because it saved millions of Japanese and American lives and perhaps all of East Asia from a communist massacre).
>>614551
Not same guy but what about firebombing Tokyo? Hiroshima and Nagasaki is always brought up because 'omg nukes are bad' but we had already bombed major Japanese cities. There was a shit ton of collateral damage caused by our strategic bombing runs.
>>614551
If strategic bombing of the civilian run and operated industry of a country is warranted then the strategic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were warranted.
The only people who focus on the ethics of using the atomic bombs are idiots who know little about the scale of strategic bombing during the war and who fail to recognize that the people involved in World War 2 had little to no reason to consider atomic bombs anything other than bigger bombs.
>>614568
Islam isn't the problem, it's just a means of rallying people in a region full of a lot of other problems. The most populous Muslim country in the world is relatively peaceful.
>>614575
I actually don't know much about the Tokyo firebombing. Dresden I think has a good claim to being a war crime.
Also someone posted earlier >>607672 the comparitive death tolls. So it clearly isn't a case of just 'omg nukes are bad'.
>>614573
But the US was the ally of the USSR.
And claiming 'hindsight' based on current reality is not valid. That is like claiming the Russians didn't commit an war crime by mass raping German women because Germany is now the most powerful and economically successful lare economy in Europe.
>>614595
>But the US was the ally of the USSR.
the US knew that the USSR would be a huge problem after the war, the alliance had already broken down by 1945.
>>614581
>If strategic bombing of the civilian run and operated industry of a country is warranted then the strategic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were warranted.
That simply does not follow. Specific tactics in conducting a strategic bombing campaign would determine whether it is a war crime, not making sweeping and unfounded generalisations.
Bombing a factory or factories is in no way equivalent to a mass bombing campaign aimed at the civilian population, both are strategic bombing.
You might as well say shooting a soldier in a battle and deliberately shooting a civilian toddler are equivalent if you are going to use this broad of a brush.
>>614609
So you hold to the claim that the only reason for the bombing was to show off to Russia?
>>614595
The western Allies and the USSR both knew that they would be enemies after the Nazis were gone. Both already had plans for a ground war in Europe against each other written up even before Germany was defeated.
>>606858
Firebombing killed more civilians and if we didn't drop it half of Japan would be a third world post Soviet shithole after the USSR invaded.
>>614628
So you hold to the claim that the only reason for the bombing was to show off to Russia?
>>614643
Just Russia? No. The whole world needed to know American might.
It is only a war crime if you lose.
If you win, it is called "necessary steps to win the war".
>>606858
>war crimes
meaningless buzzwords
>>614642
>USSR invasion.
This is an idiot meme and needs to die. The Soviets had no landing craft. They can't exactly swim from the Korean peninsula to Japan. You know what the Soviet plan was for continuing the war in case things went that long? Ask to borrow ships from the U.S.
If the U.S. was worried about Soviet gains in Japan, they'd just cancel Hula, not drop nukes.
From a legal standpoint, yes.
The japs needed to be disciplined
>>614651
This seems to be more of a claim that is was a war crime that an argument against it.
Although I do respect the, fuck it, I don't care, position, that does seem to have some validityin and of itself.
>>606858
Mass milling innocent civilians is a part of USA's military doctrine. Plus they were and are the worlds biggest propaganda machine, so they dindu nuffin' they were good boys, killed Nazis for a just cause.
>>614587
>Islam isn't the problem, it's just a means of rallying people in a region full of a lot of other problems.
Same as the noble and divine Emperor
>The most populous Muslim country in the world is relatively peaceful.
Indonesia? All I know about them is that they're at a crossroads.
>>606858
It's a very complicated issue to which I cannot give a definitive answer. However, I think the least the US can do is issue a statement of apology. Is that too much to ask?
>>606931
>muh japs were willing to fight to the death so it's ok to kill their civilians meme
Guess who else had a similar idea.
Struggle between two ideologies. Scathing evaluation of Bolshevism, equals antisocial criminality. Communism immense future danger ... This a fight to the finish. If we do not accept this, we shall beat the enemy, but in thirty years we shall again confront the Communist foe. We don't make war to preserve the enemy ... Struggle against Russia: Extermination of Bolshevik Commissars and of the Communist intelligentsia ... Commissars and GPU personnel are criminals and must be treated as such. The struggle will differ from that in the west. In the east harshness now means mildness for the future.
>>614791
Why would you apologize for something that you are not sure is even wrong, that is gay af
>>614886
I would be the bigger person and say "Hey, I'm sorry our nation state evaporated all those civilians in yours those two times". It's no fucking skin off my nose, and it would set an example in the Asian world so maybe Japan would actually apologize for their atrocities.
>>611282
>implying japs weren't looking for an excuse to bow out with honor
>implying detonating at sea in clear view from Tokyo wouldn't have been just as effective
Americans confirmed for the biggest dindus ever.
>>614921
Yeah, it's like they were so overawed by the power of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima that they surrendered right away.
Oh. Wait.
>>614791
>US told them to surrender or face extermination like never before seen.
>Say "No"
>Get exterminated.
>Apologizing because you told them what would happen.
US doesn't have to apologize. Japan got its warning.
>>614933
>bomb Nagasaki 3 days after Hiroshima
>Japan surrenders 6 days after Nagasaki
So why didn't you nuke a third city.
>>614966
Not that guy, but:
Kyoto was planned to be the next city to be nuked mate. Not to mention the US had to prepare another A/H-Bomb which wouldn't be ready until another month or so.
US had to bluff with the numbers of nukes it had at the time.
>>614974
>bluff
Not sure i would use that word here.
>>614791
>http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/ID/5229/Wikileaks-Japan-refused-Obama-Hiroshima-Apology.aspx
>>614974
>A/H-Bomb
The fuck are you doing? They were A-bombs, not H-bombs.
>>615026
Well they only had one more. Japan may have insanely tried to hold out for better terms of surrender if they figured the USA wasn't capable of bombing any more cities for months.
>>615109
>USA wasn't capable of bombing any more cities for months.
Surely you mean to say USA wasn't dropping a nuke on them for months.
>>615145
Yes.
Before posting I considered being more specific, but decided I was too lazy and that it was clear enough what I meant.
>>614791
>Japs are STILL trying to play the victim card
I hate Japanese ultranationalists with a passion.
>>615210
アメリカ人を死んでください。
>>615313
You had your chance, Tojo. You fucked up.
>>615210
I think you mean you hate all ultranationalists with a passion.
>>614667
They did just fine taking Sakhalan without landing craft.
>>607020
fuck you, it's cheating calling it early
share the action m8
>>615764
IIRC the US lend-leased them landing craft
>>615778
And there was nothing stopping them from doing that again or reusing the same equipment for invading Hakkaido. Or hell, it wouldn't be a stretch for them to build their own. It would have taken some time for the necessary forces to be staged for a proper invasion of the home islands.
>>606858
The U.S. does not do the War Crimes anon.
The U.S. does Retribution to those that create them and are not afraid to show to everyone. Because do you know why?
The U.S. has never intended to humiliate any enemy by giving them a quick death and not by starvation, physical abuse, or degeneration.
>>606858
Not given the date of things. The Germans themselves were at work on similar devices which would have changed the world in a different fashion.
Nowadays? Of course they are considered war crimes. Hence why no nation or organization has used one since then.
>>614791
Fuck your mother
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731
Crimes as bad as the nukes had already been committed all through the war, if the nukes were crimes then Dresden, the sacking of Berlin and the firebombing of Tokyo were war crimes too.
Anyone else listen to logical insanity on hardcore history?
>>615973
>The Germans themselves were at work on similar devices which would have changed the world in a different fashion.
The Germans had surrendered in May of 1945 and had cancelled its atom bomb program in 1942.
>>615986
You'll be sickened to know, and for those who don't, about the outcome of Unit 731. In a similar Operation Paperclip, the Japanese Empire traded information pertaining to the experiments they conducted to both the U.S. and Russia. This obviously lead to later conflicts of interest. Also the one commanding the crimes was exonerated.
>>616001
>if a massive, indiscriminate destruction is a war crime, then surely these far less destructive actions are also war crimes
How is that logic?
>>615764
At Sakhalin, it took almost a month to subdue a force half their size, using mostly troops that were already on the island before war was declared and when they had a friendly port to ship into.
It's WAY different to invade a beach, and then try to get supply dumps organized on the sand, until you can hopefully take a real port.
You may as well claim that El Alamein showed that D-Day could have happened at the end of 1942.
>>615778
>>615789
According to wiki, Project Hula lent the Soviets
> transferred 149 ships and craft – 28 patrol frigates (PF), 24 minesweepers (AM), 30 large infantry landing craft (LCI(L)), 31 auxiliary motor minesweepers (YMS), 32 submarine chasers (SC), and four floating workshops (YR) – at Cold Bay
30 LC (LCI(L)) could carry about 5,600 troops at a time. Assuming none of them get destroyed on the way in, you'll still get swamped by even a single division opposing the landing, what with the 1:4 odds and the defenders having all the tactical advantages.
>Or hell, it wouldn't be a stretch for them to build their own.
Yes, the country with 0 amphibious experience going to build something that can transport a few hundred troops over a distance about 5 times what the Normandy landings went in worse weather, using the single shipyard in Vladivostok, will just happen in the snap of a finger.
To build a fleet like that, even assuming they get the designing and the manufacturing down on the first go (ha!) would literally take years, and by that point, the U.S. would have overrun Japan the old fashioned way.
>>615986
>so we should have no regrets nuking civilians because of this
>>616032
>30 LC (LCI(L)) could carry about 5,600 troops at a time. Assuming none of them get destroyed on the way in, you'll still get swamped by even a single division opposing the landing, what with the 1:4 odds and the defenders having all the tactical advantages.
A single division would have about 4000 riflemen and ~100 artillery and MGs.
>>616391
The Standard, or Type "B" division was organised as:
Headquarters (300)
Infantry brigade (11600) [1]
Headquarters
Three infantry regiments, each of:
Headquarters
Three infantry battalions, each of:
Headquarters and escort
Four infantry (rifle) companies
Machine gun company, with 12 x heavy machine guns
Battalion gun platoon, with 2 x 70mm Type 92 Battalion Guns
Escort and signal companies
Regimental gun company, with 4 x Type 41 75 mm Mountain Guns
Regimental anti-tank gun company, with 6 x Type 94 37 mm Anti-Tank Guns or Type 1 47 mm Anti-Tank Guns
Field artillery regiment (2300)
Headquarters and escort
Three field artillery battalions, each of:
Headquarters and transport
Three field artillery companies, each with 4 x 75mm field guns (Type 38, Type 90 or Type 95)
Cavalry regiment (battalion) (950)
Headquarters and escort
Three mounted companies
Machine gun company, with 6 x heavy machine guns
Engineer regiment (battalion) (900)
Four engineer companies
Materials company
Transport regiment (1800)
Up to six companies, with either carts, pack horses, or motor transport
Divisional signals (250)
Medical Unit (900)
Four Field Hospitals, each of 250 personnel (1000)
Water Purification unit (120)
Ordnance unit (50)
Veterinary unit (50)
Total personnel (19,770)
It was the Chinese who fielded tiny divisions, not the Japanese.
>>616435
Good job, you know how to copy paste. What you don't know is how military units work. Typically, IJA divisions by the end of the war had 3 regiments, which had 3 battalions each, which had 4 companies each, which had 3 platoons each, which had 3 squads each, which had 12 riflemen each. The rifle strength of a Jap division would be around 4000 soldiers, which is more or less standard for the time. Then you would have much fewer soldiers manning artillery or MGs, or doing support work.
5000 combat troops would not be outnumbered 4 to 1 by a division, unless for whatever reason all the support personnel decided to grab a gun and come out to fight.
>>616435
I should add that an American infantry division had an authorized strength of 3,240 riflemen, but a division would number up to 20,000.
You really don't understand the first thing about military history.
>>616477
> unless for whatever reason all the support personnel decided to grab a gun and come out to fight.
You mean like how they did things on Okinawa, Iwo Jima, and Tarawa? What an astonishing possibility that they might do the same on their home islands.
>>616513
This is a moot point, because it's clear that you do not understand how to read military units' strength.
But if it were not, then it would be a retarded point, because a defending force that is not isolated and on the verge of collapse would not send its support personnel to die for no reason. A division was structured as it was in pretty much every modern army, because that was determined to be the more efficient way. A division where 3-4000 men are rifle is stronger than a division where everyone grabs a gun and tenno heika banzai into the enemy.
>>616536
>But if it were not, then it would be a retarded point, because a defending force that is not isolated and on the verge of collapse would not send its support personnel to die for no reason.
You are aware we're talking about a soviet invasion of Hokkaido, yes? Which would be
A) Blockaded by the Americans
B) Pounded hourly by bombers.
C) Might or might not have a functioning government.
D)Would almost certainly be out of communications with whatever is in charge.
E) Operating in conditions that are damn similar to previously cited above.
Fucking hell, these are people who would toss rifles or bamboo spears to Korean construction crews and locals and would get them to stick it in.
Was it particularly bright? Probably not. There's a reason why the Japanese soldiers were spectacularly ineffective in every land campaign except Malaya. But that's how they did operate, and it is enormously likely that yes, when the Soviets tried to make landing (and we're still making ridiculously optimistic assumptions about all of the landing craft actually making it there in one piece), pretty much everyone in the vicinity is going to be blazing away at them with whatever's at hand as soon as they're on the beaches.
I mean for fuck's sake, Clark did the same thing when the Salerno landings were going rough, and he was in a far, far less desperate situation than any Japanese defense of Hokkaido would be.
>>616551
You were talking about the Soviets being overwhelmed 4:1 when they land an LC. Now suddenly they have the entire USN helping them and providing air support? Looks like their chances have improved since your earlier post.
A few anons got it. War is the ultimate in lawlessness and make the notion of crime absurd.
"War crimes" in the legal sense are just what the winners use to justify reparations from the losers.
>>616565
No, I'm talking about likely Japanese dispositions to an invasion of Hokkaido.
If we're being realistic about this, then they'll probably fuck something up trying to mount an invasion of about 350 km from Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk to Rumoi. Getting lost, hitting mines, running aground in the wrong location, chickening out, etc
I mean, have you ever looked at the very tentative plans that the Germans made to try to pull off a sealion? They wanted to drag along 4,000 horses on the first wave, and God knows why, since they weren't bringing along the kind of heavy equipment that needs horses to carry it. I expect that a Soviet invasion planned in a similar timeframe with a similar lack of amphibious expertise will include similar idiotic blunders.
>Germany bombs the shit out of UK and French cities
Not war crimes
>Allies bombs the shit out of Germany cities
Not war crimes
>US bombs the shit out of Japanese cities
WAR CRIMES!
Let's be real here, civilians bombed by the US is just a smidgen of violence compared to the number of civilians the UK or Germany killed.
>>616677
>Let's be real here, civilians bombed by the US is just a smidgen of violence compared to the number of civilians the UK or Germany killed.
Unlikely, at least in the case of the UK (and Germany if you're only talking about their bombing campaigns and not stuff that the Einsatzgruppen were doing)
I mean, Max Hastings's work on the strategic bombing campaigns in Europe came to an estimate of 5-600,000 killed, and remember, a bunch of those would be American raids, not British ones. Tokyo alone was like 100,000, and the 2 nukes were another 120,000.
Not to say that I think they're war crimes, or that it should be suddenly different because an atomic weapon was deployed, but the U.S. probably did get more people with their aerial bombardment than the British did.
>>616677
>civilians bombed by the US is just a smidgen of violence compared to the number of civilians the UK or Germany killed.
USAAF dropped more tons of bombs than the Brits. However, the USAAF did make at least a token effort to target shit, rather than going in and night and randomly tossing bombs out.
