3 ms·
My question is: if Japan would have done that, would you consider it a war crime, or an atrocity? We can use phrases like "neutralise the enemy", but the reali
by mmustapic 5y ago
My question is: if Japan would have done that, would you consider it a war crime, or an atrocity?
We can use phrases like "neutralise the enemy", but the reality is, hundreds of thousands of civilians were killed in order to defeat the enemy.
- mc32 5y agoWar is crime. It's preposterous to frame it as not a crime. Crimes will happen in war, whether a "good" war or war on the "bad" side. War is crime. There should be no confusion about that. In the end, would have the Japanese population suffered more with a conventional ground war vs firebombings or atomic bombings? I believe the consensus is stopping the war as quickly as possible spared the population the worst of it.
- mmustapic 5y agoThen we agree, and that was my point, Allied bombings of mostly civilians is a crime.
- mc32 5y agoNot "Allied" but all bombings, including Axis bombings of purely civilians were a crime. However, you have to make a decision do you engage or sit back and watch the larger crime happen? In great wars like this the distinction between military and civilian is tenuous. Japan, like Germany, was thoroughly a martial economy. If you start a fire, don't complain later you got burnt.