"I am become death"

????
I simply don't see the logic in that. The casualty estimates were just that estimates. They varied considerably based on the assumptions that went into them. By their very nature they were questionable but not for the reason you state. Indeed the assumptions are clearly stated and pretty clearly disprove your theory. Indeed I suspect that had the bombs not been dropped as more data became available the numbers would have been revised extensively and possibly enough to have postponed the invasions in any case the numbers developed would likely have underestimated the actual losses.

 

How do you know? What type of "white knight" do you think we imagine them as?

You need to provide some support for that statement. From what I've read peace was indeed the vision (at least of the vast majority) what was in question was the path to it and the cost.

That was viewed as, and correctly so IMO, part of the best path to peace. The comparison with the Congo is very flawed in part because of the control and the effort put into developing a functioning democracy in Japan. The fact that the Japanese had experienced at least some of the benefits of a democracy before the war helped as well.

Actually it quite clearly wasn't a war crime. I suggest you look at the Avalon project and the conventions of war listed there. Here's a link to make it easy:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/lawwar.asp

That's not to say that the western allies didn't commit war crimes but they were certainly not institutionalized like those of the axis powers. There were a few provisions in the above that were violated by both sides but primarily because technology had rendered them unreasonable (such as unrestricted submarine warfare) and in most (if not all) of the cases the Axis powers broke these rules first.

 

This is an interesting subject. Maybe even more so now that the threat of nuclear war has again raised it's ugly head (along with terrorism). The concept of total war depends on which side of the line you are on. Civilians living in Syria and certain areas of Iraq probably have a different view than those in the west.

My dad was involved in occupied Japan. He actually went to one of the nuked cities (don't remember which). He did die of cancer younger than he should have. Maybe related, maybe not. He said what happened to Tokyo and Yokohama was much more impressive. I never once heard him say, "I'm sure glad we dropped the bombs." He just never talked about it.

His army Colonel brother was involved in some nuke testing. He was in a trench not far (I don't remember how far) from a blast. He also died of cancer. He said it was the most "beautiful" site he'd ever seen. He was speaking about the colors he saw. He described it as "amazing". He suffered a separated shoulder from the blast. A higher up was more seriously injured. I also never heard him say he was glad the bomb was dropped. Both would have been involved in Japan had the war not ended.

I'm not sure how I really feel about this. All I know is that I would hate for my own family to be harmed by another nation for the actions of my own nation. Most of us live in democratic nations. Most of us don't agree with everything our nation does. Could you imagine being in Japan in WW2 and have a conscience? Also remember it was a very controlled society in re to media.

I have 2 very good friends who are former Soviet Army Col's. One of them says this a lot. "History belongs to the victors." He says that as the son of a Soviet Colonel who was stationed in Hungary during the uprising. His father sent his family back to Ukraine before things got bad. The west doesn't often talk about what happened to the families of some of the Soviet officers before things got really brutal.

War is hell, total war or not.

 

He was the lead engineer in updating Tan Son Nhut Air Base to Soviet standards. I think he knows about Vietnam.

 

No "and". Just saying he knows Vietnam quite well in re to your post about no hearing about Vietnam. He also was at one point several years later assigned to the UN and lived for a time in Montreal.


Cheers.

 

I have spoken with two vet's before they passed on the subject. Like the majority they had trouble opening up about their time in service beyond 'safe' topics like boot camp and funny moments. They have to get to know you some before they are prepared to go into detail.

The first was my 5th grade homeroom/history teacher. Occasionally we would view films or documentaries. One was on the USS Franklin. He served on that ship and offered a 'A' to anyone who could spot him in the film. Good way to get us to pay attention even though he was below decks during filming. Sneaky bastard! He noted my interest in the subject along with another student who's family originally came from England (oh the Patton-Monty arguments we had) and would tolerate our questions during homeroom. He spoke of how glad the bombs were used so that the war was over and he would not have to face being off station in a invasion of Japan.

The other I worked for as a young man. He originally served in Europe and found himself selected to be transferred to the Pacific after VE Day. He made as far as the States before the bombs were dropped. He too was glad that these attacks helped bring the war to a close before he had to fight in another war.

Bottom line we live a different world than those who actually fought it. A world created by their actions, consequently our opinions are a pale reflection on theirs. We did not face what they did and they did not have 3 generations of delving into the archives of both sides.

 

OP, I got your point. Vietnam is a whole different discussion with a lot of opinions. I would probably guess we wouldn't entirely agree and didn't want to sidetrack things.

to quote Belesar: Wars are rarely fought in black and white, but in infinite shades of grey

 

All wars are war crimes.

 

Only if you use a very distorted personal definition of the term. Then it's simply an opinion and one that has no particular relevance to history. The conventions of warfare were pretty well defined prior to the outbreak of WWII at least with regards to the technologies available in the 19th and very early 20th century. Using your own definition simply a waste of bandwidth at best and confuses the issue in many cases.

 

No, it's just an opinion. Reasonable people are able to see that, not only you. The world of war is not black and white. Growing up in an Anabaptist dominated community, I did learn that there are reasonable people who truly see war that way. Your opinion is also your opinion. WW2 violated many facits of " a gentleman's war" To imply otherwise is a waste of bandwidth, to use your own words.

 

The term "war crime" is pretty well defined by international agreements. To use it otherwise especially with no clear definition is hardly reasonable. An opinion that can be backed by logic and fact is worth hearing and stating. One that has little or no basis is fact or logic is indeed a "waste of bandwidth". Certainly WW2 was not a "gentleman's war" by any reasonable definition but that's not what we are discussing is it? this is a historical forum not talk radio.

 

Maybe you miss many of the topics about alternative history. Since we are not international governments discussing war crime, maybe there is room for opinions. I see nothing other than your opinion that we should only discuss absolute facts. Your use of logic seems dependent upon your convenient use of it when it suits a purpose. Are you saying you only put down facts? Are you saying that positions even from Govt's cannot be changed? I think that is called a law and is usually written in Latin so the words cannot change meaning. Your comment and opinion about bandwidth was in my opinion a waste of bandwidth.

Waste of Bandwidth
a. A page, picture, or document on the Internet that serves no purpose. spam
b. A person who consumes resources in an office but does no actual work. waste of skin waste of carbon lazy worthless

So, using your logic, if the internet existed back in the 19th century, discussion about Dred Scott would therefore be....Spam. That would certainly be nonsensical.

 

Rather than dissect that post and contribute to OT diversion I'll let the rather incoherent rant stand on its own.
And limit the waste of bandwidth.