I think a warning was issued if you check your facts about history. At least the US doesn't commit war crimes like the Palestinians against Israel with their suicide/homicide bombers against innocents.

Mehdi, normally you're scrupulous about presenting fairly arguments that you disagree with, and I don't feel that you do so here. Neither my old Guardian article nor today's Times leader is the argument of an "ardent apologist" for the Hiroshima bombing, and that term doesn't properly characterise the historical debate. My article and the Times leader argue that use of the A-bomb was a terrible act of war but not a crime. That's it, as far as the ethical argument goes, not least because neither I nor the editorial view of The Times is as certain as you are that starving millions of civilians through a blockade or allowing Japan to continue subjugating the captive peoples of its empire reresented a humane alternative.

But it is possible to come to more confident judgements about the historical questions. Of course there is debate, but you should be aware that (a) Gar Alperovitz is given a wide berth even by other revisionist historians, first because his decades of work have failed to produce a single piece of documentary evidence in support of his "atomic diplomacy" thesis, and secondly because of his consistent misrepresentation of source material by such expedients as the creative uses of ellipses; (b) Fisk's claim that the Japanese were talking of surrender is simply false: unlike Asada, whose work is based on painstaking analysis of primary sources, Fisk is no Japanese scholar; (c) the USSBS conclusion, written by Paul Nitze, has been refuted by historians who've taken the simple step of reading the evidence wihin the survey since it's been declassified: Nitze, who had his own reasons for wanting to claim that air power had defeated the Japanese, simply ignored that evidence and wrote the answer that he'd first thought of (see Robert P. Newman, "Ending the War with Japan: Paul Nitze's 'Early Surrender' Counterfactual", Pacific Historical Review, May 1995; Gian Gentile, "Advocacy or Assessment? The United States Strategic Bombing Survey of Germany and Japan", Pacific Historical Review, February 1997); (d) historians have also demonstrated that Eisenhower's account of having advised Truman against use of the A-bomb cannot be accurate (Barton Bernstein, "Ike and Hiroshima: Did he oppose it?", Journal of Strategic Studies, September 1987); and (e) Leahy's memoir is a grossly unreliable source, strongly influenced by his view at the time that the Bomb wouldn't work.

There's a lot more I could say, but I cordially suggest, at a minimum, that your post hasn't given an adequate account of the views you're criticising.

Best wishes,
Oliver

Let's end the ignorant commenting now, shall we. Just because the Japanese committed war crimes doesn't mean anywhere else is justified in doing so in retaliation.

All war is atrocity, plain and simple.
The worst being sacred wars.

Oliver - all fair points and well-made. I retract the "apologist" comment. But I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on whether or not it was necessary, moral or a war crime under international law.

For me, the ends do not justify the means...

Regards,

Mehdi

Japan was NOT "already prepared to surrender". Even after the Nagasaki bombing on 9 August 1945, the Imperial Council failed to reach agreement on whether to surrender. The civilian leaders knew there was no alternative, but the military leaders insisted that Japan continue to fight. The deadlock was broken only because the "peace party" was able to refer the decision to the Emperor, who was at least able to recognise the fact of defeat and thus the need to surrender. Even then, the military tried to prevent surrender by mounting a coup d'etat, which might have succeeded if General Korechika Anami, the Minister of War, had supported it. And Anami wouldn't accept surrender either. His restraint was purely due to obedience to the Emperor. He solved his conflict of loyalties by killing himself.

I can understand ethical absolutism on the use of nuclear weapons, but I find it revealing that so many who profess it evidently find that position so unsatisfactory that they have to resort to demonstrably false historical claims to back it up.

Mehdi, thanks for your typically gracious reply. I'd merely leave you with this observation. You and I are political commentators: it is unlikely that we'll ever have influence on policy beyond the power of our words. For President Truman, in 1945, there were only the three options that I've stated: authorising the A-bomb; mounting a conventional invasion and blockade; or allowing Japan, a force genuinely comparable to Nazi Germany in ideology and criminality, to maintain its empire. There was no option beyond these. We pundits should be thankful that we'll never be faced with such a choice.

@Des. Using your flawed logic would have resulted in Uday Hussein being PM of Iraq today.

There are demonstrations all the time in South Korea and China about the content of Japanese school books.

@EhtchTee. The only reason Japan is a wealthy and advanced nation is because of America. Without the US Japan would still be a closed society akin to North Korea.

@Jeremia

You've taken too much of a leap. I was referring to a degree of forward planning.

Seems to have worked in Japan's case.

Writeoff: No country "merited" the use of Atomic weapons, and no one has said so. I have tried to put some Historical context to this, instead of emmotion. The Japanese Empire showed no sign of realising it was defeated, and its propaganda had told everyone that it never could be. Defeat came to the population as an almighty shock. The effect of this was to slay Japanese Imperialsm and Militarism. A good thing.

If the Japanese had been so great at fighting British Imperialism, why was it that Aung San and the other Burmese Nationalists swapped sides to co-operate with General Slim?

I dont think that comparing Fallujah with Hiroshima helps any point you try to make here, either in scale or intent.

Within 15 years of 1945, the British Empire had been dismantled, with Malaya being the only major military action carried out east of the gulf during this particular process. Japanese plans were for a permanent subjugation of its "co-prosperity sphere"

The morality of any kind of warfare is a moot point indeed, but in saving the lives of countless Japanese and Allied lives, it is difficult to see what the USA could have done. There was no really significant Peace Party within the Dictatorship - the Japanese Foreign Ministry, like its counterpart in Nazi Germany, was basically subject to the Warlords.

Well said Jeremiah, Robin37, Real Truth
The Japanese Imperial Army invaded many countries and killed around 2 millions innocent people before the bombs were dropped. Some of the writer here including Hasan had no idea how cruel and animal-like the JIA were. Please put a search on "Japanese atrocities".
Japan will not surrender. That is also how they taught their soldiers. Even if they do, may be another million lives will be lost, Japanese included. They flew 7,000km or more over to Indonesia, Malaysia, Sinagpore, Philippine etc to systematically massacre and rape innocent citizens. The emperor knew what was going on but did nothing. Japan tried to colonized the whole of South East Asia. The Hiroshima memorial is there to gain sympathy of their loss from the world but nothing was mentioned about the millions their own soldiers killed, including old folks, women, children and babies.
Yes, they kill babies too. By throwing them into the air and bayonet as they fall.
Thank you America for dropping the bombs. It's the bomb to end the nightmare for all victims.

I'm wondering what the point is of this article.

I assume the vast majority of poster here, including Mr Hasan, were not alive at the time this took place, had no first hand knowledge of the circumstances, and whether they are of the opinion if it was a war crime or not is not going to change one thing.

It is pretty much unthinkable that any country would now deploy nuclear weapons. Times change and debating the rights or wrongs of a decision taken 65 years ago in a war time atmosphere that we can only guess at seems rather pointless.

The war crimes were committed by the Germans,Italians and Japanese. They awoke the ''giant'' that never wanted a war. To suggest what America SHOULD had done is absurd. It did what it HAD to do...WIn! Germany may have had the bomb and the US didn't know what any of those countries abilities were. So they made their own decisions based on what COULD HAD BEEN, if they did not defeat the enemy. War is an awful event and the use of the Atom Bomb was a historical lesson for the world to see, not imagine the horror inflicted on enemies who attack a nation that was not prepared to fight, BUT IT PREPARED TO WIN! The US is a giant and a peacekeeper in this world. It does what no other nation can or would do. It fights for it's friends and restores it's enemies. No other nation is able to say that without redress. The US came to us to help. It gave many lifes for us. It sacrificed for us. The American soldier died for US as well as his own people. Why?? Because Americans are all OF US! I have no apology for an imperfect war or a revisionist trying to say what he would had done. The guy who wrote the article wouldn't even fight for his own family! I saw the article about the Mosque in America. Surely, common sense should have a place at the table about the situation. The muslim has no right to speak out about the mosque till he has the courage to speak out against Islamic practices on a grand scale thru-out the world. You may have the courage here. But go to a dominate muslim country and dare utter a word against Islam. You want. So get off your high horse about what America should do. You are a hypocrite. I thank God for America and her bravery. I am a Christian...and FREE!Not shackled by religion or freethinkers philosophical rhetoric.

ENOUGH! DELETE THIS PAGE ASAP!

Leaflets dropped on cities in Japan warning civilians about the atomic bomb, dropped August 6, 1945

TO THE JAPANESE PEOPLE:
America asks that you take immediate heed of what we say on this leaflet.

We are in possession of the most destructive explosive ever devised by man. A single one of our newly developed atomic bombs is actually the equivalent in explosive power to what 2000 of our giant B-29s can carry on a single mission. This awful fact is one for you to ponder and we solemnly assure you it is grimly accurate.

We have just begun to use this weapon against your homeland. If you still have any doubt, make inquiry as to what happened to Hiroshima when just one atomic bomb fell on that city.

Before using this bomb to destroy every resource of the military by which they are prolonging this useless war, we ask that you now petition the Emperor to end the war. Our president has outlined for you the thirteen consequences of an honorable surrender. We urge that you accept these consequences and begin the work of building a new, better and peace-loving Japan.

You should take steps now to cease military resistance. Otherwise, we shall resolutely employ this bomb and all our other superior weapons to promptly and forcefully end the war.

EVACUATE YOUR CITIES.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

ATTENTION JAPANESE PEOPLE. EVACUATE YOUR CITIES.
Because your military leaders have rejected the thirteen part surrender declaration, two momentous events have occurred in the last few days.

The Soviet Union, because of this rejection on the part of the military has notified your Ambassador Sato that it has declared war on your nation. Thus, all powerful countries of the world are now at war with you.

Also, because of your leaders' refusal to accept the surrender declaration that would enable Japan to honorably end this useless war, we have employed our atomic bomb.

A single one of our newly developed atomic bombs is actually the equivalent in explosive power to what 2000 of our giant B-29s could have carried on a single mission. Radio Tokyo has told you that with the first use of this weapon of total destruction, Hiroshima was virtually destroyed.

Before we use this bomb again and again to destroy every resource of the military by which they are prolonging this useless war, petition the emperor now to end the war. Our president has outlined for you the thirteen consequences of an honorable surrender. We urge that you accept these consequences and begin the work of building a new, better, and peace-loving Japan.

Act at once or we shall resolutely employ this bomb and all our other superior weapons to promptly and forcefully end the war.

EVACUATE YOUR CITIES.

Of course nuclear bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki and killing circa 200,000 Japanese (mostly women and children) was a war crime and provided a starting point for a further 65 years of US and UK state terrorism by high technology war.

The same genocidal, mass murdering mind-set dominates Anglo-American policy today. Thus it can be estimated from UN Population Division data that violent deaths and non-violent excess deaths from war-imposed deprivation now total 4.4 million (Iraq, 1990-2010) and 4.5 million (Afghanistan, 2001-2010) with a further 0.8 million people dying globally (circa 24,000 in the UK alone) from opiate drug-related causes due to US Alliance-restoration of the Taliban-destroyed Afghan opium industry (see "Muslim Holocaust, Muslim Genocide": https://sites.google.com/site/muslimholocaustmuslimgenocide/ and "Afghan Holocaust, Afghan Genocide: https://sites.google.com/site/afghanholocaustafghangenocide/ ). About 23 million violent and non-violent excess deaths (mostly of women and children) have been associated with post-1950 US Asian wars.

In the US- and UK-backed racist Zionist Palestinian Genocide alone , post-invasion violent and non-violent excess deaths total 0.3 million (see my chapter "Ongoing Palestinian Genocide" in "The Plight of the Palestinians", edited by Professor William Cook, Palgrave Macmillan, London, 2010).

The US has invaded about 30 countries since 1945 (see William Blum's "Rogue State" and my "Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950") and most of the victims of these high technology wars have been women and children (children represent about 50% of the population of most Developing countries and women plus children about 75%).

Tell the God-less, anti-Christ prelates who bless continuing Anglo-American mass murder of women and children in the War on Terror (in horrible reality a cowardly, racist and genocidal War on Palestinian, Arab, Muslim, Asian and non-European Women and Children): thou shalt not kill children.

For a scholarly analysis of the genocidal post-Hiroshima mindset read "Death's Dream Kingdom. The American Psyche since 9-11" by Professor Walter A. Davis.

The first bomb HAD to be dropped Japan would'nt have surrendered without America going toe to toe with a horrific battle on mainland Japan that would have led to who knows what for the Japanese people.

However the second bomb to me at least was utterly unnecessary and for me was a war crime.

In August 1945 there were 250,000 Japanese Armed Forces on Kyoshu Island. They were expecting the imminent invasion by Allied forces and were prepaired to fight to the last. The "innocent" civilians were also armed and ready to kill. There were thousands of British, Australian, Dutch and US POW's on Kyoshu Island, they were working in slavery for the so called "innocent" civilians. Many of those POW's perished in the A bomb explosions at both Hiroshima and Nagasaki but there is no annual service to remember their deaths. Had the A bombs not been used then Kyoshu Island would have been bombed into oblivian using conventional weapons. All of the 250,000 Japanese Soldiers would have perished as well and at least 1 million "innocent" Japanese and the thousands of Allied POW's who were rented by the "Innocent" Japanese from the Japanese Imperial Army. So in a strange way the A bombs saved the lives of over a million "Innocent" Japanese and their slaves. How do I know this is true you may ask? My father was one of those POW's who was a slave in the Zinc Foundry at Omuto, he witnessed the A bomb at nearby Nagasaki and was rescued by US Marines in September 1945. Like most of the other POW's in Japan he spent the rest of his life suffering from the Physical and Psychological damage inflicted by the so called "Innocent" Japanese civilians. Who in Japan remembers the thousands of Allied POW's who they worked to death in their factories - no-one is the answer!

Hindsight is 20/20 vision, and its easy to take the moral high-ground when you're not in the line of fire. We do so sometimes ignore or forget who the perpetrator is or was and who is actually re-acting in defence.
Today it is immoral for murderers to be 'murdered' in turn.

I was happy posting here I thought I was going to be able to debate on a civilised level. However after just watching the youtube videos featuring the author of this piece I am truly stunned!
You son unfortunately lost the moral high ground despite the fact that in one of your sermons you preach that you must keep the moral high ground!
Wow I am really stunned at just how deep your own bigotry is and yet you have the impudence to accuse others of this.
The vast majority of posters here have blown your thoughts on this subject to pieces.
The Japanese people could have stood up to their government but they didn't.
One thing you have done for me with your article though is make me even MORE aware of why the bombs were right.

War is a crime so all acts of war, whoever commits them, are war crimes.

link to Christmas Island testing,
http://www.bntva.com/

Could anyone please tell me the projected casualty list, both Allied and Japanese(including civilians) that were drawn up and calculated for the projected invasion of Japan? From memory, I think it was around 1,000,000 - mostly civilians and Japanese military.
Considering that both Truman and Churchill had experienced the Western Front in The Great War, and Attlee was a Gallipoli veteran, it is hard to judge them too harshly for trying to end the war quickly. After all, the Japanese Empire would have needed a demonstration of its utterly hopeless position on home ground before a peace party would even be possible.
Nagasaki is possibly a war crime, but as all war is a crime against humanity, is it worse to be incinerated or beheaded?
Sorry, but reality has to bite sometime.

You won't like this, but there is a view here in Japan that the bombs were about the best thing to happen to this country. Why? Because they stopped the Russians from invading, Japan surrendered, thus saving millions upon millions of lives. Horrible bare knuckle logic, but think about it. After two bombs, Hirohito and his cabinet would still not surrender, even though they knew the devastation the bombs had caused. Maybe it was the bombs AND the Russians declaring war that made up Hirohito's mind. Were the bombs war crimes? Looked at in today's PC world, to some - yes. Sixty five years ago, the world was a very different place and it's so easy to be wise after the event, isn't it?

Hiroshima, a war crime? OF COURSE! How can deliberately targeting a civilian population be anything else?

Ditto Nagasaki, Dresden, the Blitz.

Regardless of what the enemy at the time did, NOTHING justifies such acts.