Curzon over at Coming Anarchy has another great post on the question of war crimes, citing former U.S. Defense Secretary Robert McNamara’s role in the fire bombing of Tokyo. Thought provoking as always, with an outstanding discussion in the comments section.
Check it out.
24 Comments
Marmot,
Has anyone been found guilty of war crimes in international court for air bombing?
I can’t remember any. There may have been. I can think of campaigns that were condemned in public in several wars. But, I can’t think of any war crimes trials for such a thing or ones that led to convictions.
What are your thoughts? And why do you consciously omit your thoughts?
Is this sort of like the same Koreans who enjoy trafficking Filipino and Russian sex slaves calling the Japanese war criminals for maintaining comfort women?
But then again, Filipinos and Russians are untermensch to Koreans, so that makes it OK…right, *****?
Mark,
I don’t like you mentioning sex slaves just to slap Koreans around, but I do agree with your point that we cannot judge the past wars with today’s standards.
1)Japan calculated that they could easily win against the US. Their game plan was to destroy the West Coast fleet totally and then do amphibius attack on California. They calculated that they could “win and enslave” Americans. Tojo and Hirohito believed this. The Rising Sun ruling over entire America. Give you shivers through your spine? Speaking Japanese, changing names and worshipping Shinto God. Women serving Japanese men as Geishas.
2) Japan was not a gentleman. They start attacking the Pearl harbor one hour after notifying the US. This sneak attack is unforgivable. But, for the Japanese, it was not only OK but a great thing to do.
3) Japan was willing to fight to the last man(or woman). This is not just a mere conjecture or empty slogan. As any Japanese or Korean knows, the Japanese meant it. Without the air bombing, the war would have dragged on year after year. Japan may have rebuilt their army to engage in counter-offensive against the US.
McNamara was just getting old and regretting many things he had done. Overly sentimental. He did the right thing in bombing the Japanese civilian population. After destroying over 50% of 20 major cities, the Japanese still did not surrender. This shows their resolve. The nuke was the only option left at the time.
Paul H.,
You bring up a good information about the possibility of the US communicating with Germany prior to engaging in the war. I’ve always wondered about Germany’s sudden abandonment of the landing plans on England. I once watched the PBS program that Germans had made a plan to relocate the captured British subjects and imprison them in various camps located inside Germany.
However, even the TV program did not give good reason as to why the plan was suddenly abandoned. Some say Hitler decided to attack Russia instead, and lost interest in England.
I suspect Roosevelt may have given the ultimatum to Hitler that if he lands in Britain the US would enter the war, thus saving Bratain from certain destruction. Have you come aross any info along that line?
I remember a great line from the movie,
“War is a madness that sucks you in.” - McNamara
And why do you consciously omit your thoughts?
Because the (Korean) Man is watching. No, seriously, you may notice two of my posts linked to Curzon’s post. Those pretty much some up how I feel about war crimes, i.e., I don’t see how something can be a “crime” when it’s predicated on who wins and who looses. Yeah, I’m sure bombing Japan into the Stone Age ended the war sooner, but I’m also fairly certain that Japanese commanders were thinking along the same lines when they engaged in some of their nastiness. The moral of the story is that if you engage in atrocities, you’d better win. And there is something very unsettling about that moral.
And as for anyone being convicted for air bombings in an international court, I don’t know if anyone has offhand — Hermann G?ถring was convicted for war crimes (along with conspiracy to wage war, crimes against peace, and crimes against humanity), but I don’t think the London Blitz was counted as one of them. Certainly it could have been — see http://www.dannen.com/decision/int-law.html
The moral of the story is that if you engage in atrocities, you?d better win.
No, the moral is: don’t start wars.
The horrors of the allied airraids of major Japanese cities are not well known… Perhaps that is a lesson. Lets try to forget, as well as forgive. For too long the message was “we won, so we must have been right”.
I am interested in hearing how fighter pilots today feel about this.
The biggest problem in these types of arguments is that the casual observer has a tendency to apply today’s morality to yesterday’s war.
Targeting of civilians in and of itself was not criminalized until 1949. Think about all the ways civilians were targeted prior to then–V1 and V2 ballistic missile attacks, aerial bombardments, heavy mortar and artillery shelling of cities, ballistae and trebuchets hurling rotting corpses over castle walls to spread disease, wholesale slaughter of civilians once walls were breached, and so on and so forth–all things which we would consider deplorable by today’s standards.
Think about it…why do we not see today’s massive levels of anti-war sympathy in conflicts prior to 1949? Because all civilians regardless of nationality knew that the enemy could and would actively target the population. This is why Pope Ratzinger was a flak auxilliary.
Today’s anti-war protesters need to wake up and realize that we are all targeted, and that the enemy cares about as much about war crimes as Vlad Tepes did.
I’m sorry if this is a repeat. I don’t know if the first went through.
I had to chop off the little finger of my left hand to allow me to comment on this, but I couldn’t help it.
” but I don?t think the London Blitz was counted as one of them. Certainly it could have been”
That is the question, isn’t it? I don’t call it “certain” that the bombing of London, Dresden, or Tokyo would have been found as war crimes by such a court.
We are talking about legal things, not contemporary sense of morality.
The talk about such things outside legal circles is always too loose.
From the link Marmot gave me -
“ARTICLE XXII
Aerial bombardment for the purpose of terrorizing the civilian population, of destroying or damaging private property not of military character, or of injuring non-combatants is prohibited.”
And
“ARTICLE XXIV
(1) Aerial bombardment is legitimate only when directed at a military objective, that is to say, an object of which the destruction or injury would constitute a distinct military advantage to the belligerent.
(2) Such bombardment is legitimate only when directed exclusively at the following objectives: military forces; military works; military establishments or depots; factories constituting important and well-known centres engaged in the manufacture of arms, ammunition or distinctively military supplies; lines of communication or transportation used for military purposes.
(3) The bombardment of cities, towns, villages, dwellings or buildings not in the immediate neighborhood of the operations of land forces is prohibited. In cases where the objectives specified in paragraph 2 are so situated, that they cannot be bombarded without the indiscriminate bombardment of the civilian population, the aircraft must abstain from bombardment.
(4) In the immediate neighborhood of the operations of land forces, the bombardment of cities, towns, villages, dwellings or buildings is legitimate provided that there exists a reasonable presumption that the military concentration is sufficiently important to justify such bombardment, having regard to the danger thus posed to the civilian population.
(5) A belligerent state is liable to pay compensation for injuries to person or to property caused by violation by any of its officers or forces of the provisions of this article.”
We throw the word “indescriminate” around a lot. You hear it about Afghanistan and Iraq in general anti-war talk despite all our advancement in precision bombing. A civilian dies - and today it is indescriminate bombing.
But, even back in WWII, bombadeers used the best technology available to hit targets deemed militarily important — like factories — but given the nature of the technology of the day, and the amount of bombs needed to hope to destroy a factory’s capability, because so many bombs don’t hit the target, a lot of non-military places were hit.
And in a court of law, I am sure a defense attorney would bring forward a lot of arguments to say this or that target fit under the law.
And a judge, not the media or armchair judges, would decide.
Would a Japanese judge have been more likey to convict an American if they had won?
So, are we going to toss out international law altogether?
Admit might makes right and let those rules function fully?
I’m not a big fan of how people champion international law as if it was the law of a nation-state and enforcable like that of a nation-state, but the situaiton is much more complicated than just “those who win get to convict who they want by defining the law as they want.”
Is that really what you (the generic you) believe is all that goes on? The only thing behind the trials of what’s his face from Bosnia/Kosovo is that the US and others have the power to define the law as they like?
Or, are we calling for a narrowing of the focus to discuss what should have constituted breeches of the law in 1939-1945? Or, are we going to dig in and say how the law should have been written differently to fit such and such a bombing?
For example, what is the penalty specified in the law quoted?
(perhaps there is more later on. I stopped reading about there to write this, because my wife wants the computer).
The penalty is payment of money to those damaged by bombings deemed illegal.
Is that what we have in mind when we bring up Lodon, Dresden, Tokyo, or Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
That is what we mean by war crimes and war criminals for such bombings?
It does seem to be the law.
(and I seem to remember Hiroshima and Nagasaki were picked besides Tokyo and other nations because of their war making capability).
But, when we get into these discussions, the wording we use is more along the lines that total war was what was practiced in something like WWII with a Tokyo or Dresden used as an example.
But, even the use of newly created atomic weapons can not prove that line of thinking.
The US had mustard gas and biological weapons. It could have dropped large amounts of the stuff on Japan and Germany. The Doolittle raids could have dropped such weapons to disrupt the Japanese even more.
The allies didn’t….
Those articles were never ratified, and therefore would carry about as much weight as a blog comment in court.
“…The US had mustard gas and biological weapons. It could have dropped large amounts of the stuff on Japan and Germany…”
I believe it’s an almost unknown fact of WWII that the US and Great Britain had such weapons in bombs ready to drop on Germany, in the event the Germans used chemical weapons first (remember Germany was the first to use these during WWI — the Allies certainly did).
And the Germans knew this so that was why chemical weapons were never ordered to be used by Hitler. Don’t remember if there is any public knowledge of any diplomatic exchanges about this between the two side (ie through Switzerland) but I wouldn’t be surprised if such exchanges occurred.
Though Hitler evidently gave orders for the use of chemical weapons (along with scorched earth tactics) in the last couple weeks of his life, from the bunker in Berlin. I think Speer said in his memoirs (published in mid 1960’s after his release from Spandau prison) that he (Speer) arranged for such orders to be quietly suppressed before they could be relayed.
Can’t remember where I read this long ago, but I’m pretty sure that German scientists invented the first nerve gases in the 1930’s (found accidentally during insecticide research?) The Germans assumed that the Allies had nerve gas as well but in fact they did not (!) — lucky for us they never realized this.
As usual, Paul H. brings up a good point, which is that all acts considered “war crimes” must be put into perspective with whatever laws of war were in effect and ratified at the time.
In 1925, a Geneva protocol banned the use of chemical weapons, while at the same time allowing them to be developed and stockpiled.
This is why one cannot observe the massive use of chemical artillery shells in World War I and cry, “war crimes, war crimes!”
“I am interested in hearing how fighter pilots today feel about this..”
At one point during the latter part of the Vietnam war I think at least one B52 pilot refused a mission (I think it was in a B52 unit located on Guam; there were other B52’s based in Thailand). However, I’m going from 35 year old memories of something I read in a newspaper or magazine or maybe heard on evening TV news at the time, so this would need verification. I can’t remember what the consequences were (if any) for the pilot.
I’m not a pilot but I think this example is conspicous for its exceptionalism. If any US military pilots were here I think they would tell you that they are “mission-focused”. I.e, only interested in putting a bomb on a specified target which will have been given to them and therefore they will assume that naturally it is a military (and therefore a legal) one. By the time the mission reaches them, they are oriented on the detailed prep required to accomplish this, not on the morality behind it.
If some cigar chomping caricature of a USAF general were to stand up at a pre-mission briefing and tell them that they are being sent out to deliberately attack an enemy hospital or school, they are obligated to refuse the order under the Law of War training they would have already received. But my description of this scenario would cause any USAF or USN pilots to laugh since it just wouldn’t happen.
The more realistic scenario is what about when they are told that such a hospital or school is only a few hundred yards from their intended target.
Their answer would almost certainly be that they will note that in their pre-mission planning and make every effort to avoid it, but nothing is guaranteed in wartime. If they are in the middle of ordnance release and they are hit by enemy fire (or have to jerk the controls at the last second to avoid such fire) the weapons could go astray. Naturally the enemy would later portray the results as a deliberate attack; this happened often enough during the Vietnam war.
With precision guided weapons and “stand off” it’s much less likely to happen now, but of course now our potential opponents are happy to locate key targets close to civilian populations (or right underneath them) in order to “protect” such targets.
It’s not the job of the lower-level operational commanders and their pilots to worry about the selection of such targets, but only to make the detailed plans to strike them successfully if ordered to do so. In this sense I think such pilots will see the issue as an “abstract” one — a pilot never sees the people on the ground that are killed as a result of his attack.
In the way that a suicide bomber in Iraq gets to do right before he detonates his car bomb. If you were to ask the suicide bombers a similar question about their reactions to this, I’m sure they would go to some lengths to explain to you that they see absolutely no difference between what they do and what American pilots do (and much of the Muslim public worldwide would agree with this).
And that of course is what this war is all about.
My job is to kill pilots, and I can tell you that 95-100% of those who refuse to fly a bombing mission against a known enemy target are more afraid of integrated air defenses than anything else, although the conscientious objector card does make for good drama with the press and holds a lot of weight with politicians.
…which is what McNamara brought up in Fog of War, if you’ve seen it.
The film is compelling, and I hope you’ll at least take the time to see the brief segment on post linked above. The entire thing is worth watching, although the 10 minutes on WWII are the best.
Also, check out Part 2 of the war crimes series (which has nothing to do with the bombing of Tokyo).
Baduk: I wasn’t referring specifically to any possible US diplomatic communication with Germany prior to US entry into WWII, but rather to a possible diplomatic exchange or series of exchanges between the Allies and the Germans (at any time between 1939 and 1945). Subject: an unannounced agreement to refrain from using chemical weapons against each other.
I don’t know whether there was any such exchange or not, I was just speculating. There may be an answer in obscure archives somewhere, who knows. Besides, any agreements with Hitler were not to be trusted anyway as they were only good as long as Hitler felt it was to his advantage to keep to them. He was very much like the Communist regime of North Korea in that regard.
Prior to Pearl Harbor (7 Dec 41) Hitler was dismissive of the US as a potential adversary. The US had something like the world’s 17th ranking military prior to the start of WWII. Once again you are extrapolating later US military power back to an earlier time when we were simply not such a power. Prior to Pearl Harbor the people of the US mostly wanted no involvement in foreign wars and they didn’t want to pay the taxes needed for a large defense establishment.
The US Congreess was willing to pay for a world class Navy and at least fund some first-class aircraft development programs, but hardly any money for the Armyl.
Hitler knew this and made the decision to declare war on the US almost casually, without even bothering to consult his rubber stamp Parliament or his high-ranking military and political advisors. (Probably at least partly because he was wrapped up in the battle of Moscow during Dec 41, followed by the Soviet 41-42 winter counteroffensive).
Hitler declared war first (10 or 11 December, can’t remember the exact date). He was not required to do so by his treaty with Japan, so one of the great unknowns of WWII is what would have happened had Hitler not done so. It’s not at all clear that Roosevelt could have gotten the US Congress to declare war on Germany first, when it was only Japan that had attacked us on 7 Dec 41.
If Hitler had won the “Battle of Britain” (the German aerial bombing campaign against England Aug -Sep 1940) he would have followed it up immediatley with an invasion attempt against Southern England across the English channel. Hitler had his land forces in France preparing for such an attempt and this is well documented in history (the German code name was Operation Sea Lion).
This would have happened without regard to anything the US would have done or said. Roosevelt was running for reelection in 1940 against a significant opponent (Wilkie), plus he was trying for a third term which had never been done before in US history. If Roosevelt had advocated going to war against Germany unilaterally during the election campaign of 1940 he probably would have lost. Roosevelt felt in necessary to make a famous election promise in (late?) Oct 1940 (approx quote: “Your sons are not going to fight in any foreign wars”). You can look it up if you want.
We were a much different country back then Baduk.
Holy cow, 17th? Oh, my, my.. I cannot believe it. No wonder Japan took a jab at America. And, it took four years to beat them.
There is great lesson here somewhere. Even a great superpower like the US may become lax and possibly sink back to 17th?
17th to the first in the span of four years. Is this God’s grace or what? A miracle.
Thanks, Paul. I have learned tons of facts today.
Paul,
And, as you probably know, Roosevelt and the US Navy knew about the Japan’s surprise attack. And, intentionally allowed it.
The US Navy have sent out the half of the US Navy’s Pacific fleet out of Pearl harbor intentionally, prior to Japanese fleet arriving there. Navy intelligenc corp broke the Japanese code and was listening on their moves. The Navy and, of course, Pres. Roosevelt knew where the Japanese fleet was heading, the Pearl Harbor.
Pres. Roosevelt felt that it was the time to get into action but could not, due to his campaign promise and the general anti-war attitude. So, he allowed the Pearl harbor to wake people up.
Is the 9/11 a similar scenario? Anyway, I am behind Bush all the way. Iraq was the right move. Then and now.
Paul H.,
I have heard that Hitler was against the use of chemical weapons, unless as a last resort, because he was a victim (sound strange to call him that) of mustard gas in 1918.
Another explanation (pg. 11) is that they (the Germans) did not have the proper protective suites/filters, and so could not risk a retaliation they could not protect against.
Baduk: “…And, as you probably know, Roosevelt and the US Navy knew about the Japan?s surprise attack. And, intentionally allowed it….Pres. Roosevelt felt that it was the time to get into action but could not, due to his campaign promise and the general anti-war attitude. So, he allowed the Pearl harbor to wake people up…”
No Baduk this is certainly a mortal insult to Roosevelt. Roosevelt had been a Secretary of the Navy during at least part of the Wilson administration (1912-1920), not sure of the exact dates. He was never in the military himself but he loved the Navy and never would have deliberately allowed Pearl Harbor to happen.
A massive failure in a “system” is often a result of many different causes working over time and then coming together in one climactic moment.
Roosevelt did have the Navy move the Pacific fleet base from San Diego to Pearl Harbor in 1940 as a political “signal” to an aggressive Japan. But the failure by the government and the Congress to adequately fund the Hawaiian defenses (ie provide enough long range aircraft and small surface forces to allow continous long-range search around Hawaii) is one of many reasons Pearl Harbor happened the way it did.
But probably the main reason is an assumption by just about everyone back then that Japan would never dare to do such a thing. In that respect Admiral Yamamoto’s achievement remains one of the great feats of military history; if Admiral Nagumo (in command of the Pearl Harbor strike force) had hung around and been successful in taking on the US carriers (which were at sea but nearby) — and had he also continued to attack the Pearl Harbor facilities — he could have put the cap on Yamamoto’s achievement and perhaps prolonged the war for Japan a few years more at least.
And who knows, maybe the whole Pacific war would have turned out differently and Korea would still under Japanese administration. I think Nagumo disappeared on Saipan during the US invasion in 1944 (seppuku) and they never identified his body; otherwise, you could go to Yasukuni shrine and be sure of giving mental thanks to Nagumo’s ashes for not hitting “US” harder in Dec 41.
Yes I know there have been books and a History Channel show about this idea that Roosevelt “allowed” Pearl Harbor to happen but I think about 98% of historians would reject this.
It’s as ridiculous as the idea of Bush knowing about 9/11 in advance and allowing it to happen. People love conspiracy theories but in fact it’s usually just Murphy’s Law (which rules the universe).
Or you can call it “inshallah” (as God wills) if you prefer.
Richardson: good link. I believe there are also “in house” histories of the chemical services of the US and the British militaries for WWII; I know the British have such a volume for WWI because I read extracts from it long ago. Don’t know what if anything is “on-line” now but I haven’t looked.
Without being able to provide links, I’m pretty sure that you will find that all the major militaries in WWII had their individual soldiers carry gas masks (or at least the soldiers were supposed to). There is documentary footage of British civilians at the start of the war (1939) being provided with gas masks, as everyone expected that as soon as the war started every air force would start bombing the enemy cities with gas and that this attack could not be stopped (one reason why everyone favored “appeasement” back then).
I believe that when you see documentary footage of WWII German soldiers (Wehrmacht), that cylindrical thing you see them always wearing or carrying on their “web gear” is their gas mask carrier.
From what I’ve read US combat troops in WWII commonly threw away their issued gas masks as an extra burden (at least this is what happened in Normandy during D-Day). If you tell this fact to current young US soldiers I’m sure they will laugh incredulously; if they did this today they would be subject to severe disciplinary measures.
Also, on D-Day (Normany 1944) US combat troops going ashore had their clothing impregnated with some sort of “greasy” substance to try to stop the effects of mustard gas on the exterior surfaces of the body. Eisenhower and his commanders were afraid the Germans would decide to use mustard on the concentrated troops on the beachheads (I think Eisenhower mentions this in his memoirs).
Individual US soldiers telling about their experiences on D-Day will often relate how uncomfortable this greasy stuff was. The current military “overgarments” (protective suits with activated charcoal linings) evidently didn’t exist during WWII; I’m not sure when these were first invented or by whom.
Don’t know what the WWII Germans did for their soldiers ( civilians) to provide exterior preparation to protect them against possible use of mustard gas, but you are certainly right that this would have been an enormous problem for them and thus a great incentive to refrain from the use of gas themselves.
Paul,
I donno. I guess we will never know exactly how it happened. Like the Kennedy assassination.
It surely does not fit what we know about Pres. Roosevelt, the man of compassion. I think he was the greatest president of the US, truly redefined the national characteristics.
Before him, I think the US was just a grand central station, where people come and go(back to where they came from)looking for fortune. Then, Mr. Roosevelt appeared and showed how America can be a unified nation.
What many consider American democracy, I believe, is Pres. Roosevelt’s invention. Government of compassion, equality and fairness. Government of social security, medicare and unemployment insurance! People caring about each other. Having clear identity as Americans.
George Washington and Abe Lincoln were good presidents too. But, for me, Pres. Roosevelt made America as she stands today.
Yes, I am a democrat.
People now look at Japan as a country. But, in the early 20th century, it was more than a nation, it was an empire.
The Mighty Asian Samurai.
The country that first beat Russia, snatched Korea from the Chinese grip, and then ate up China itselt. Moving toward Southeast asian countries..A country that cannot lose.
Koreans were so happy to be a part of this mighty war machine. They felt proud as a member of the Great Japanese Empire.
In Asia, Japan was the Reich. Emperor Hirohito was a god. and Tojo was Hitler. All Japanese officers were Samurais who feared no one. They will kill the enemy at first sight, for the glory of the Rising Sun.
Every Korean men wanted to be a sergeant in the Japanese army and some have achieved their dream. They even became officers. Koreans looked the same as Japanese and with some education spoke Japanese as well as the natives.
The Mighty wind of god. The 100 wins out of 100 battles. Never lost a battle.
Hirohito and Tojo truly believed that they could take and rule over America. They ate up China which is about the same size as America. So, why not America? Like somebody on this board who thinks this simple, it looked as if two countries are the same situation.
They seemed to be right at first. They destroyed the Pacific fleet and kicked Yankees out of Phillippines. However, America was not China. Two totally different kinds of people. Totally different outcome.
Miscalculation! The Sun has set.
Then how come I’m driving a Nissan? Looks like “the sun also rises”.
I drive Nissan too. A Nissan Quest. I wouldn’t touch Hyundai. I suspect poor workmanship. I have my own prejudices.
Don’t feel bad. Nissan is mostly French-owned.
And, I think many Americans buy Hyundai thinking it is a Honda made in Korea. That is great for Korea!