4 ms·

> had the US lost the war, the people who ordered those bombings would have been found guilty of war crimes and hanged. Just gonna leave this here (from the wi

> had the US lost the war, the people who ordered those bombings would have been found guilty of war crimes and hanged. Just gonna leave this here (from the wiki page) > Many of the Allied airmen who were captured after being shot down over Japan were mistreated. On 8 September 1944, the Cabinet of Japan directed that indiscriminate bombing constituted a war crime despite the fact there was no international treaty or instrument protecting a civilian population specifically from attack by aircraft at the time. As a result, captured Allied airmen were subject to trial and possible execution. Don't wish to discuss whether it was morally right or wrong. Just pointing out it's difficult to call something a "crime" if there was limited legal basis for it (no international treaty) at the time. Let's not judge the people of yesteryear by today's moral standards. I sure as shit don't want to be judged on some of the stuff I've done based on standards in 70 years time. Edit: Also, war is hell.

hh3k0 5y ago
> Just pointing out it's difficult to call something a "crime" if there was limited legal basis for it (no international treaty) at the time. You are unaware of the Nuremberg trials, it seems?
- dijksterhuis 5y ago
  I'm just repeating what is on the wiki page and saying that 70 years ago != today.
  - hh3k0 5y ago
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_trials#Ex_post_facto_charges https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_trials#Ex_post_fac...
    - dijksterhuis 5y ago
      I said it's difficult to call something a crime when there is limited existing legal basis. Not that it wasn't a crime. Nor that it was a crime. Also, definitely IANAL.
      - hh3k0 5y ago
        Since you said: > Just pointing out it's difficult to call something a "crime" if there was limited legal basis for it (no international treaty) at the time. I can't help but wonder if you'd find it equally difficult if someone calls certain actions of the Nazis a crime -- assuming there was limited legal basis for it (no international treaty) at the time, etc. Or is it only difficult when we're talking about American crimes?
        dijksterhuis 5y ago
        > Or is it only difficult when we're talking about crimes [that have not been prosecuted in a court of law, only the court of HN comments]? More accurate.
- Manuel_D 5y ago
  Actually, a high ranking Germany naval officer was tried for ordering unrestricted submarine warfare during the Nuremberg trials and was successfully able to defend against this charge by pointing out that the Allies engaged in the same strategy [1]. The Allies did recognize the hypocrisy of punishing defeated enemies of the same actions they took. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Order_No._154#Nuremberg_trial https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Order_No._154#Nuremberg_tr...
soperj 5y ago
>despite the fact there was no international treaty or instrument protecting a civilian population specifically from attack by aircraft at the time There was the Hague Conventions from 1899/1907, specifically IV, that does exactly that.
- dijksterhuis 5y ago
  This was literally copy-pasta from wikipedia. Feel free to edit the wikipedia entry if you think it's wrong.
- beerandt 5y ago
  Japan refused to sign IV(1889)/XIV(1907), so the restrictions on aerial bombardment wouldn't apply to either party.

hh3k0 5y ago

> Just pointing out it's difficult to call something a "crime" if there was limited legal basis for it (no international treaty) at the time. You are unaware of the Nuremberg trials, it seems?

dijksterhuis 5y ago
I'm just repeating what is on the wiki page and saying that 70 years ago != today.
- hh3k0 5y ago
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_trials#Ex_post_facto_charges https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_trials#Ex_post_fac...
  - dijksterhuis 5y ago
    I said it's difficult to call something a crime when there is limited existing legal basis. Not that it wasn't a crime. Nor that it was a crime. Also, definitely IANAL.
    - hh3k0 5y ago
      Since you said: > Just pointing out it's difficult to call something a "crime" if there was limited legal basis for it (no international treaty) at the time. I can't help but wonder if you'd find it equally difficult if someone calls certain actions of the Nazis a crime -- assuming there was limited legal basis for it (no international treaty) at the time, etc. Or is it only difficult when we're talking about American crimes?
      - dijksterhuis 5y ago
        > Or is it only difficult when we're talking about crimes [that have not been prosecuted in a court of law, only the court of HN comments]? More accurate.
Manuel_D 5y ago
Actually, a high ranking Germany naval officer was tried for ordering unrestricted submarine warfare during the Nuremberg trials and was successfully able to defend against this charge by pointing out that the Allies engaged in the same strategy [1]. The Allies did recognize the hypocrisy of punishing defeated enemies of the same actions they took. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Order_No._154#Nuremberg_trial https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Order_No._154#Nuremberg_tr...

soperj 5y ago

>despite the fact there was no international treaty or instrument protecting a civilian population specifically from attack by aircraft at the time There was the Hague Conventions from 1899/1907, specifically IV, that does exactly that.

dijksterhuis 5y ago
This was literally copy-pasta from wikipedia. Feel free to edit the wikipedia entry if you think it's wrong.
beerandt 5y ago
Japan refused to sign IV(1889)/XIV(1907), so the restrictions on aerial bombardment wouldn't apply to either party.