The War in Ukraine

[Eaglelord17]

Some folks are just of the opinion that war is criminal and that all deaths are crimes against humanity.

With respect to what is a legitimate target

Infanteer with bayonet
Gunner loading cannon
Trucker delivering shell
Labourer manufacturing shell
Cook feeding labourer
Landlord supplying bed and board for labourer
Hospital fixing up injured infanteers, gunners, truckers, labourers, cooks and landlords?

They are all part of the total war effort.

It is why Coventry, Dresden and Hiroshima looked different in 1945 than they do today.

Coventry, Dresden and Hiroshima were war crimes, just crimes that were never prosecuted. Much like how the Americans killed a insane number of Japanese POWs/surrendering troops (literally having to bribe them with ice cream to get them to stop killing them all), or how all sorts of Soviet war crimes were never persecuted.

History is written by the victors, and the victors rarely are made to account for their crimes. There is plenty of evidence of allied war crimes, there was also a lack of caring to prosecute the soldiers. Much like how into the modern era America still has next to no criminal cases against its soldiers in modern conflicts despite the huge amounts of evidence that exist of it all.

Trying to defend modern war crimes by using historical ones is not a good thing. There is also plenty of evidence of attempting to cover up their crimes. Dresden for example they pretended to have legitimate targets but they all knew the goal was to destroy everything. Plenty of vets have admitted to that after the fact.

It was more a reprisal against a civilian population than a legitimate military target. Yes there was legitimate military targets in Dresden but most the areas they intentionally bombed was not.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki was also terror bombings, chosen to hit a civilian center to cause as much civilian damage as possible. That whole myth Japan wouldn’t have surrendered without the bomb is just that, a myth. Japan was already negotiating their loss after Russia invaded.

The only part that the US didn’t like was that they weren’t unconditionally surrendering. The US killed 300k civilians in a horrific manner just to prove a point, not because of some overarching saving American lives BS.

All those attacks would fail the updated Geneva conventions, and its good they would. The world deserves better than reprisal based attacks on civilians.

 

[KevinB]

Coventry, Dresden and Hiroshima were war crimes, just crimes that were never prosecuted. Much like how the Americans killed a insane number of Japanese POWs/surrendering troops (literally having to bribe them with ice cream to get them to stop killing them all), or how all sorts of Soviet war crimes were never persecuted.

History is written by the victors, and the victors rarely are made to account for their crimes. There is plenty of evidence of allied war crimes, there was also a lack of caring to prosecute the soldiers. Much like how into the modern era America still has next to no criminal cases against its soldiers in modern conflicts despite the huge amounts of evidence that exist of it all.

Trying to defend modern war crimes by using historical ones is not a good thing. There is also plenty of evidence of attempting to cover up their crimes. Dresden for example they pretended to have legitimate targets but they all knew the goal was to destroy everything. Plenty of vets have admitted to that after the fact.

It was more a reprisal against a civilian population than a legitimate military target. Yes there was legitimate military targets in Dresden but most the areas they intentionally bombed was not.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki was also terror bombings, chosen to hit a civilian center to cause as much civilian damage as possible. That whole myth Japan wouldn’t have surrendered without the bomb is just that, a myth. Japan was already negotiating their loss after Russia invaded.

The only part that the US didn’t like was that they weren’t unconditionally surrendering. The US killed 300k civilians in a horrific manner just to prove a point, not because of some overarching saving American lives BS.

All those attacks would fail the updated Geneva conventions, and it’s good they would. The world deserves better than reprisal based attacks on civilians.

You ignoring the part that Japan however didn’t surrender unconditionally until after the second bomb landed on Nagasaki.

You also seem to have failed history because Russia declared war on Japan 7 Aug 1945, one day after Hiroshima and 2 days before Nagasaki.

 

[Rifleman62]

THE COLLAPSE OF RUSSIA'S MINISTRY OF DEFENCE IN REAL-TIME || 2024​

 

[mariomike]

Coventry, Dresden and Hiroshima were war crimes, just crimes that were never prosecuted.

Dresden for example they pretended to have legitimate targets but they all knew the goal was to destroy everything.

Yes there was legitimate military targets in Dresden but most the areas they intentionally bombed was not.

If the discussion is going back to 1945, it is worth noting that to those who planned and directed it, the raid on Dresden was no different from scores of other operations mounted during the years of war.

You ignoring the part that Japan however didn’t surrender unconditionally until after the second bomb landed on Nagasaki.

Following that came the largest and and longest bombing raid of the Pacific War.

More than 400 B-29s attacked Japan during daylight on 14 August, and more than 300 that night.

A total of 1,014 aircraft were used, with no losses.

Readers may find this book of interest.

The Last Raid by Dan Ford.

https://www.amazon.ca/Last-Raid-World-Ended-August-ebook/dp/B001AQI7XU

 

[Czech_pivo]

I’ve spent some time in a couple hospitals this year… They tend to be fairly large and fairly distinct from neighbouring structures/facilities. I’m going to suggest that if your attack is so large and widespread that a hospital just casually gets smoked as part of collateral damage, odds are your attack is far too disproportionate and indiscriminate to be justified. Shit we could and would do in the 1940s just doesn’t fly today.

Only true up until the war becomes a 'life or death' situation - and then all bets are off. History repeats itself and I fully believe what 'we' did to the Axis during the 1940's could easily be done again.

The US didn't waterboard any captured Axis troops during WWII, even after Pearl Harbor, but the taking down of a world class symbol (The WTC) of American power 55yrs later changed everything.

 

[Eaglelord17]

You ignoring the part that Japan however didn’t surrender unconditionally until after the second bomb landed on Nagasaki.

You also seem to have failed history because Russia declared war on Japan 7 Aug 1945, one day after Hiroshima and 2 days before Nagasaki.

Japan was already negotiating. It was the demand for a unconditional surrender, something which was basically never heard of in a nation which was delaying it. The US just wanted to not involve the USSR in negotiations, and was willing to sacrifice 300k for that. They still didn’t immediately surrender after the bombs were dropped, it took some time.

Japan was just trying to clearify the terms, a very reasonable thing and logical thing to due. Attempting to use the USSR as a intermediary in negotiations (which obviously failed when they invaded Japan). They had already lost, they were simply trying to negotiate that loss.

Only true up until the war becomes a 'life or death' situation - and then all bets are off. History repeats itself and I fully believe what 'we' did to the Axis during the 1940's could easily be done again.

The US didn't waterboard any captured Axis troops during WWII, even after Pearl Harbor, but the taking down of a world class symbol (The WTC) of American power 55yrs later changed everything.

Your right, the US killed a ton of captured Axis troops instead. So much better.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Coventry, Dresden and Hiroshima were war crimes, just crimes that were never prosecuted.

It'd be an interesting and useful exercise to lay out the provisions in international law that made those war crimes.

Dresden for example they pretended to have legitimate targets but they all knew the goal was to destroy everything. Plenty of vets have admitted to that after the fact.

Did they? It must be nice to know exactly which claims are accurate and which are self-serving rationalization.

That whole myth Japan wouldn’t have surrendered without the bomb is just that, a myth. Japan was already negotiating their loss after Russia invaded.

You left out the very, very, very important part about who in Japan was trying to negotiate, and who was not, and who was in control. Besides, a sufficient reason was to halt the war ASAP and end the loss of life.

All those attacks would fail the updated Geneva conventions, and its good they would.

As you say, "updated", which is why it's useful and important to judge what happened according to contemporary standards.

 

[Brad Sallows]

They had already lost, they were simply trying to negotiate that loss.

And the Allies were not open to negotiation. What would be the point of negotiation if the terms of negotiation lay the groundwork for another conflict?

 

[GR66]

Coventry, Dresden and Hiroshima were war crimes, just crimes that were never prosecuted. Much like how the Americans killed a insane number of Japanese POWs/surrendering troops (literally having to bribe them with ice cream to get them to stop killing them all), or how all sorts of Soviet war crimes were never persecuted.

You don't mention that this happened after a great many instances of Japanese soldiers feigning surrender in order to blow up their captors with grenades, etc. Japanese troops were well noted for their preference for suicide attacks rather than face the dishonour of surrender. It's also important to note that in many cases the Japanese did not honour the surrender of Allied troops and those that did surrender were subjected to unspeakable atrocities.

Trying to defend modern war crimes by using historical ones is not a good thing. There is also plenty of evidence of attempting to cover up their crimes. Dresden for example they pretended to have legitimate targets but they all knew the goal was to destroy everything. Plenty of vets have admitted to that after the fact.

It was more a reprisal against a civilian population than a legitimate military target. Yes there was legitimate military targets in Dresden but most the areas they intentionally bombed was not.

Just as judging historical events by modern standards is not a good thing. The ability to strike precision targets the way we can now simply did not exist in WWII. Dresden was a major transportation hub through which German forces transferring between the Eastern and Western fronts would need to pass. Blocking the routes through the city would help prevent the Germans from reinforcing either front. What specific weapons and tactics available to the Allies at the time would you propose would have been able to achieve that strategic military objective?

Hiroshima and Nagasaki was also terror bombings, chosen to hit a civilian center to cause as much civilian damage as possible. That whole myth Japan wouldn’t have surrendered without the bomb is just that, a myth. Japan was already negotiating their loss after Russia invaded.

The only part that the US didn’t like was that they weren’t unconditionally surrendering. The US killed 300k civilians in a horrific manner just to prove a point, not because of some overarching saving American lives BS.

All those attacks would fail the updated Geneva conventions, and its good they would. The world deserves better than reprisal based attacks on civilians.

and

Japan was already negotiating. It was the demand for a unconditional surrender, something which was basically never heard of in a nation which was delaying it. The US just wanted to not involve the USSR in negotiations, and was willing to sacrifice 300k for that. They still didn’t immediately surrender after the bombs were dropped, it took some time.

Japan was just trying to clearify the terms, a very reasonable thing and logical thing to due. Attempting to use the USSR as a intermediary in negotiations (which obviously failed when they invaded Japan). They had already lost, they were simply trying to negotiate that loss.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that there was some sort of unified leadership in Japan that was in favour of surrender. The Japanese leadership was seriously factionalized and many of those in control had absolutely no interest in surrendering to the Allies and fully intended to arm the civilian population and fight to the death.

And as far as the "unconditional" terms there was a perfectly good historic example of unconditional surrender that happened in Germany just three months previously. Sorry, but you launch a war of aggression and cause the death of millions of people and when those people fight back and defeat you it's their fault if you are unable to dictate the terms under which you'll stop fighting?

 

[mariomike]

They had already lost, they were simply trying to negotiate that loss.

After two A-bombs were dropped, President Truman ordered a resumption of B-29 attacks against Japan at maximum intensity "so as to impress Japanese officials that we mean business and are serious in getting them to accept our peace proposals without delay."

 

[Skysix]

And the Allies were not open to negotiation. What would be the point of negotiation if the terms of negotiation lay the groundwork for another conflict?

Something the apologists need to remember/consider when discussing Ukraines fate

 

[mariomike]

The ability to strike precision targets the way we can now simply did not exist in WWII.

This was the Area Bombing Directive 14 Feb., 1942.

Area bombing directive - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[lenaitch]

Operation Downfall - the invasion of Japan - estimated 268,000 allied casualties. Given that pretty much every island-hopping battle was fought to the last man, Japan's demonstrated 'death before dishonour' ethos and their demonstrated fanatical cruelty towards their adversaries and civilians, I will give the allied nations and their leaders a pass on taking advantage of a new weapon that had the promise of bringing the war to an end.

My step-mom lived through the Blitz. She wouldn't have been aware of the Geneva Convention or Laws of Armed Conflict, but knew that they were being terrorized, night after night.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Operation Downfall - the invasion of Japan - estimated 268,000 allied casualties. Given that pretty much every island-hopping battle was fought to the last man, Japan's demonstrated 'death before dishonour' ethos and their demonstrated fanatical cruelty towards their adversaries and civilians, I will give the allied nations and their leaders a pass on taking advantage of a new weapon that had the promise of bringing the war to an end.

My step-mom lived through the Blitz. She wouldn't have been aware of the Geneva Convention or Laws of Armed Conflict, but knew that they were being terrorized, night after night.

The original 'FAFO quote' enters the chat

 

[Kirkhill]

If you are fighting for your life which rules do you follow and to which referee do you appeal?

Wars and policing are not the same.

 

[mariomike]

Pesident Truman said an invasion of Japan would look like "Okinawa from one end of Japan to the other." Casualty predictions varied, but all were high.

 

[brihard]

If you are fighting for your life which rules do you follow and to which referee do you appeal?

Wars and policing are not the same.

Indeed, but nobody is claiming they are in any way the same.

The only country that can really be said to be fighting for its life right now is Ukraine. There’s no evidence that its military aims and state survival would be furthered by mass bombings of civilian areas. And, on the contrary, in this day and age that’s likely to just be a massive waste of munitions to little military advantage.

Like I said above, what worked and was accepted eighty years ago doesn’t line up with today.

 

[Skysix]

Answer = No.

 

[Skysix]

Operation Downfall - the invasion of Japan - estimated 268,000 allied casualties. Given that pretty much every island-hopping battle was fought to the last man, Japan's demonstrated 'death before dishonour' ethos and their demonstrated fanatical cruelty towards their adversaries and civilians, I will give the allied nations and their leaders a pass on taking advantage of a new weapon that had the promise of bringing the war to an end.

My step-mom lived through the Blitz. She wouldn't have been aware of the Geneva Convention or Laws of Armed Conflict, but knew that they were being terrorized, night after night.

My mother lived through the Blitz as well. A 500# bomb landed in the backyard garden but became UXO. EOD failed/died and house was seriously damaged - her bedroom destroyed.

When the civil defense sirens were tested in the 60's she went into PSVT and even more decades later in the 90's while visiting Coppermine and Frobisher Bay (now Kugluktuk and Iqaluit) the evening kids recall siren almost literally gave her a heart attack.

The terroristic attacks Ukrainians are living through (and dying in) will cause multi generational lasting psychological trauma. Dad made us all sit through this series as kids with discussion afterwards which I think helped her, and likely influenced my becoming a Sapper and a Medic.

 

[Skysix]

Tere’s no evidence that its military aims and state survival would be furthered by mass bombings of civilian areas.

You may well know more facts on this than what I can glean from open sources, but I have seen NOTHING that even hints that is a strategy they are looking at. In fact, quite the opposite, they take pride in being better than the Orcs.