Talk:Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki/Archive 3

message: I am not intereted in the moral question in this section, as they are open to interpritation and are discussed in detail in other sections. I would like someone to explain to me the legal arguments. For example when Karl Donitz was put on trial at the post-war Nuremberg Trials he was accused and found guilty of waging an unrestricted submarine war using the 
Treaty of London  1930 Article 22
:(1) In action with regard to merchant ships, submarines must conform to the rules of International Law to which surface vessels are subjected.
:(2) In particular, except in the case of persistent refusal to stop on being duly summoned, or of active resistance to visit or search, a warship, whether surface vessel or submarine, may not sink or render incapable of navigation a merchant vessel without having first placed passengers, crew and ship's papers in a place of safety. For this purpose the ship's boats are not regarded as a place of safety unless the safety of the passengers and crew is assured, in the existing sea and weather conditions, by the proximity of land, or the presence of another vessel which is in a position to take them on board.
Using similar legal arguments can someone please supply the legal basis for the following statements in the article:
#Willful killing of civilians,
#wanton destruction of cities, 
#use of poisonous weapons (due to the effects of the radiation) were defined as war crimes by international law of the time...
::These bombings were justified. How can you say they weren't? They ended the Asian theatre of war of World War II--Biohazard 06:06, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is easy if one doesn't assume the ends justify the means.  Are you saying the war would never have ended without both of them?  Read the article for more examples of how one can say they weren't.  Then perhaps you can contribute to a discussion based on the merits.--Silverback 07:19, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: Murdering civilians on a large scale, in peace or wartime, is a crime against humanity.
Murdering civilians on a small scale is murder. Was killing enemy civilians in enemy defended territory a crime against humanity in 1945? If it was which articles in which treaties cover this? Philip Baird Shearer 03:15, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction

message: ;Someone added:
:According to Robert Jungk, page 178, (which needs a confirming reference):
::    "On the short list of targets for the atom bomb, in addition to Hiroshima, Kokura and Nigata, was the Japanese city of temples, Kyoto. When the expert on Japan, Professor Edwin O. Reischauer, heard this terrible news, he rushed into the office of his chief, Major Alfred MacCormack, in a department of the Army Intelligence Service. The shock caused him to burst into tears. MacCormack, a cultivated and humane New York lawyer, thereupon managed to persuade Secretary of War Stimson to reprieve Kyoto and have it crossed off the black list."
::: Alas, Jungk doesn't give sources, but I don't have any reason to doubt him, but see below...
;From Frank's Downfall p. 262:
: The conspicuous absence of Kyoto from the list was the result of direct intervention by Secretary of War Stimson, who deleted the city over vigorous and protracted efforts by Groves. Stimson had traveled to Japan and appreciated the cultural significance and spendor of the old capital and insisted that its artifacts, if not its one million inhabitants, be spared.
;—wwoods 07:03, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Rhodes, Making of the Atomic Bomb (pp. 640-641) quotes an interview with Groves (from a book published in 1965, so his memory may not have been accurate that long afterwards) about his meeting with Stimson where he first told Stimson that Kyoto was to be a target, and Stimson immediately objected. So it's not clear that Reischauer's pleas were needed. Noel (talk) 15:34, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Reasons to doubt Jungk: He wasn't there. He makes other errors. (The same reasons apply to any other historian.) Jungk implys Stimson opposed it BECAUSE of Reischauer. More references are welcome.64.165.203.61 21:20, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I don't know about this particular issue, but there are reasons to doubt Jungk, to say the least. He was known to make a number of significant errors of interpretation and judgment. --Fastfission 13:19, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kyoto