Do you consider atomic bombing of Hisroshima and Nagasaki during WW2 a genocide?

Question

Right after World War2, tribunals (Nuremberg Trials & Tokyo War Crimes Trials) were established to prosecute those guilty of war crimes and atrocities commited during World War2. Within the framework of War Crimes cases is a category so called "Crimes Against Humanity". Both Germany and Japan were found guilty on that category of War Crimes. What is your opinion regarding the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombings. Should they have been considered as war crimes?. Apply clear and honest thinking and put aside biases. This is still very controversial issue.

Answer 1

The definition of genocide:

Genocide is a term defined by Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG) as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

If we had indiscriminately used nukes on every city in Japan, that might have qualified as genocide. If, after the surrender, we had stormed ashore and attempted to exterminate every Japanese civilian -- man, woman, and child -- that might have qualified as genocide.

Using a weapon of war to end the war, and then PEACEFULLY occupying the country and rebuilding it does NOT qualify as genocide.

Answer 2

The bomb accomplished a number of things:

1. It ended the war sooner.

Japan MIGHT have surrendered anyway, or after conventional bombing (which would have killed even more), but the US couldn't know that

2. It saved American lives.

This one is unarguable, and in wartime understandable

3. It prevented a Soviet interference in the post war designs of the US.

The Soviet union was by the time of the bombings already transferring troops to the Pacific theater.

4. It sent a not-so-subtle message to the Soviet Union that armed conflict with the west would not be in it's best interest. (A possibility that was far more likely than people realize).

5. The US only had two bombs.

And it would be some time before more could be produced.. so a "test" to show the power of the bomb could not be relied upon as the weapons were too precious to waste.

Basically at no time did the US have as a reason to kill as many civilians as poosible.. otherwise it would have been dropped on Tokyo or Kyoto, and at no time during or after the war were the Japanese people treated with anything like the circumstances suffered by true victims of Genocide.

Answer 3

No. A genocide is the systematic msas murdering of a race or people because of their differences. Believe it or not, the A-bombs actually saved millions of lives. If not for the bombs, the war would have kept going for years with millions more dying. The war in the Pacific was the least successful for the Allies, and the most difficult, so there's no saying whether or not they would have won had the bombs not been dropped. If they lost, the world would definitely not be a better place. If you know ANYTHING about what the Empire of Japan did to people against it from 1938-45, then you know what I'm talking about. You might even go so far as to say the unfortunate bombings were a humanitarian service, were you immune to the fury and racism of an entire country.

Answer 4

I honestly do not think so as otherwise the mainland of Japan would have had to be invaded causing millions of deaths on both sides. The Japanese war machine had convinced the Japanese people that the Americans would commit atrocities against the people if it were invaded and it was feared that they would have committed suicide attacks and indeed suicide in their millions. As it proved, the dropping of the bombs, on two Christian cities did in fact have the effect hoped for. It stopped the war. There is also a school of thought that some elements of the Atom Bomb had been provided to the Japanese by the Germans and there is a probability that they would have produced a bomb in the near future. Weapons of mass destruction - where have I heard that before. However, there is documented evidence of the fact.................

Answer 5

To reiterate what others have said, using the atomic bomb on Japan, was a deterrent against a full American land invasion of Japan. Many analysts said then, and continue to believe that the only way to remove Japan from the war, was to either invade it entirely, which predictions state could cost well over a million lives. Or to force them to surrender. Now the Japanese were obviously ready to fight to the death, they had trained suicide bombers ready to fly and die. So it is believed that using the atomic weapon actually SAVED more lives in the end, simply because a ground invasion would have cost many more lives lost on both sides. Also why these bombs were not dropped on Tokyo, but the cities where the Japanese government were inciting civilians to fight the war.

Answer 6

The purpose of dropping atomic weapons was to shorten the war. All estimates of casualties during an invasion were exponentially greater than the casualties inflicted by the bombs. Genocide was not the purpose as the US had no intention of exterminating the Japanese people. The Germans had attempted to wipe out the Jews and the Japanese had committed terrible atrocities against the people they had conquered with the sanction of the government.

Answer 7

There weren't considered genocide, because for that classification you have to have an intent to destroy a group or race. The intent was never to kill all the Japanese, just end the war.

But yes, there was a high up on the Pacific front (I don't remember who) who said that if the US had lost the war, they could probably be tried for war crimes. This is because there was really no concern over loss of innocent civilian life when bombing the main island of Japan.

Answer 8

History is written by those who win...so if the Germans and Japanese would have won WW2, then yes, our military tactics could have been prosecuted as war crimes. But since the Allied forces won, we decided what steps to take next (Nuremberg) and we wrote history.

Were those bombings genocide? No. At no time did we attempt to eradicate the entire Japanese race.

Answer 9

No doubt the bombing of civilians was a war crime, thankfully we were the victors and didn't have to face war crime tribunals.

The incendiary bombing of Dresden and nuclears attacks on Hiroshima/Nagasak were barbaric acts, none can deny, but the country that would attempt to civilize and humanize total war would most likely be defeated.

That to me is the lesson of Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Answer 10

No, there was no other alternative. An invasion of Japan was estimated to cost a Million Men, it simply was not practical.

The Atomic Bombs were terrible weapons yes. But the use of such is not a war crime. Gathering civilians and systematically torturing and killing them is a war crime.