Atomic bombs use-a war crime?

First, I want to thank you for raising the level of debate on this forum. I thought that it was not bad before, but your well-argued and informed posts raise the bar.

While your point about the fallacy of blurring the distinction between crimes against peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity is valid, I believe it may be introducing a level of subtlety which was not present in the initial post. Perhaps it is necessary to throw out a broader net: "Allowing for the fact that it happened during a war, did the USA commit a crime against humanity by dropping atomic weapons?"

Actually, I am acquainted with the full name of the Hague Convention. However, at the time it was written, the technical means to destroy cities from a distance were limited (artillery, possibly airships). Article 25 does say:

And Article 23 states:

Certainly the American position would be that because Japan was still resisting, these Articles were not relevant. So long as they possess even the most trivial military assets (such as communications or economic capacity) -- or there is a chance that a ground defense could be organized in the case of ground attack -- Hiroshima, Nagasaki, or any other city or town would be a valid target. This interpretation makes these articles meaningless in practice.

As much as I might like to make that argument, it is sadly not true.

The relevant words in the Hague Convention are "bombardment, by any means". The fact that it was nuclear is simply a difference in scale, and specific technologies.

By your definition, provided you were at war with Jews, and it had not surrendered, burning down the Jewish village would not be a wanton act of destruction. This definition of "military necessity" is too expansive. The atomic bombs were not dropped to destroy military assets which would be used in the defense of Japan against invasion -- that would have been true military necessity. They were dropped to convince the Japanese government and people that further resistance was futile -- terror bombing in its purest form. One of the purposes of the Hague Convention and other relevant treaties was to limit the impact of war on civilian populations, even while acknowledging that they would be victims in many ways.

As I have said elsewhere, I support the decision to drop the bombs. I just don't think strategic bombing of population centers is compatible with international law. Because several countries planned to do it before WW2, they should have proposed new treaties or withdrawn from existing ones. The fact that none of this happened says more about the effectiveness of international law in constraining countries than it says about military doctrine.

1. Fine, so it seems you think that using the atom bombs could have been a crime against humanity, rather than a war crime. That's a legitimate position; however there is a major problem with it.
While "crimes against humanity" is a new definition, which came into being with the end of WWII, they are actually made up of other crimes, violating either the international laws of war or local national laws. Take the quintessentially new crime, genocide. In its scope, final intent, and scale, it's new. It is indeed a true "crime against humanity" because if carried out to the final consequences, it would make the whole of humanity poorer. It is still, however, made up of a few million murders.
So it's difficult to argue that any given behavior is a "crime against humanity" if it isn't already a crime, either a war crime or a violation of other laws.

2. Article 25 of Convention IV 1907 is, of course, not made "meaningless in practice" by the fact that an enemy is resisting. That enemy might always elect to resist elsewhere. For instance, Rome and Belgrade were both declared "open cities". Rome was, by and large, respected (though the Allies did bomb its outskirts, where German commands and units were deployed); Belgrade was not. That's why Belgrade is the one case I know of where air bombardment of a city was considered a war crime - because it directly violated Article 25.
The Germans could have declared their cities as "open cities". If they had done that for all of them, of course, they would have had to withdraw all military units from them, and shut down all militarily useful functions, and make them defenseless. That's tantamount to surrender, it's true; but it just goes to showing that it was the German government's responsibility if German cities were destroyed.

3. Article 23 does not include the term "military necessity". It includes the term "necessities of war". Converting that to "military necessity", and then concluding that it has somehow to do with the destruction of military units, rather than with winning the war, is a mistake.
The "necessities of war", of course, is a broad definition. But we should also take into account the purposes of the treaties and of their wording in the minds of the plenipotentiaries who signed them. If they had so chosen they could have worded that clause in another way, such as: "to destroy or seize enemy property, unless it hosts enemy military units". They didn't say that. They didn't want that.
So is "wanton destruction" meaningless? No. Suppose that in your advance you bypass a factory. And you keep going. You know there are no enemy troops in the factory. You know you are pushing the enemy back. By now, the factory, though it's enemy property, is deep within your lines. Can the enemy use the factory in any way whatsoever to further his war objectives against you? No. So if you destroy it now, it's a wanton act of destruction.

4. You state that "bombing population centres is incompatible with international law". You are right, in many ways it is - now. Because today's international law has evolved since 1945, and one of the reasons why it has evolved is that just like all laws, it adapts itself to what can be done and what has been done. The international laws applicable in the 1939-45 period were different.

5. You also suggest that in order to bomb defended enemy cities, the combatants of WWII should have written different treaties. Actually Article 25 gives them all the coverage they needed. Not only so. In considering the options, one should study not only the treaties that were in force, but also those that were not in force. For a brief time, the dropping of ordnance from airships and balloons had been prohibited. That was, however, a treaty with a deadline, and all powers concerned did not renew it. Why? Because they wanted to be able to bomb from the sky. Moreover, in 1938 a draft of a treaty prohibiting city bombing was put together. It was never signed or ratified. Why? Because everybody wanted to be able to use their bomber fleets with as little hindrance as possible. It's sad to say it, but the major world powers in the 1930s knew very well what they could do to each other's cities, and wanted things to stay that way, and in the end they got what they wanted.

i think this should be a poll. so we can all vote on a settled thing...

I have seen on National Geographic documentary a quote from Le May saying that if he lost the war he would have been put on trial as a war criminal...

Winner rulles!

Iama

Hi Imperialist,

Then it looks as though the more tolerant side won, then, because the Western Allies never prosecuted any Axis leaders for similar activities to Le May's.

As far as I am aware, the only Luftwaffe commander prosecuted for bombing civilian areas was the commander of the attack on Belgrade, who the Yugoslavs convicted. His case was exceptional because he had commanded the bombing of a city the Yugoslavs had declared "Open" under international law and made no attempt to defend.

Yup, winner rules! On this occasion, thank heaven for the right winner.

Cheers,

Sid.

Hi Curioso,

With regard to your 5.

The balloon provisions were created at a time when no heavier than air machine had yet flown. They were due to be reviewed in a new Hague conference provisionally set for 1916, but WWI prevented this taking place.

After WWI international law turned from regulating war (as in the pre-WWI Hague Conventions) to preventing war. As a result no revision was made regarding the prohibition of bombing by aircraft until the Anglo-French put forward such a proposal to the League of Nations in 1938. However, by then Japan, Italy and Germany were already finding bombing civilian areas useful in China and Spain and had already left the League of Nations or were ignoring it, so the proposal was never adopted. Thus not all powers were equally culpable for the lack of specific provisions regarding the limitations of bombing in WWII.

Cheers,

Sid.

Maybe because then they would have had to prosecute Le May too, or do a farce out of "justice" by prosecuting only one side for crimes committed by both.
In comparison, the Americans never engaged in holocaust activities, so they had the moral high-ground to prosecute the germans for it.

As for the last part, a winner is a winner. There is no good or bad in it. The good and the bad themselves are the result of who wins...

Hi Imperialist,

Whatever the reason, the Allies not prosecuting Axis air force leaders for bombing of built-up areas was in accord with international law as it existed at the time.

OK. Good and bad is the result of who wins. I say again, thank heavens for the right winner!

Cheers,

Sid.

Hi guys,

check out this link:

http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=su...0II:%20Japan%22

I find "My Japan" and a "Tale of Two Cities" most interesting.

take care

Hi Imperialist,

I think it important to emphasise that both are PROPAGANDA films.

(As I understand it, in Romanian the word "propaganda" has a milder meaning that can relate to commercial advertising as well. In English it is rather harsher and more judgemental. It does not relate to commercial activities, only to political activities designed to put over a particular point of view without necessarily a close regard for ballance or the truth. Propaganda necessarily is part of every nation's arsenal in wartime and of totalitarian regimes even in peacetime.)

Cheers,

Sid.

An interesting movie:

Pershing

I never thought of propaganda as a commercial related word - I always considered it "rather harsher and more judgemental".

Hi D-13th Mytzu,

Is "propaganda" not also used in relation to commercial advertising in the Romanian language?

Cheers,

Sid.

I never used it in such way, I also never heard it used by others in this role. However I might not have heard everything yet :] But in my vocabulary it certanly does not mean that - neither in my friend's vocabulary.