What is your take on the A-bomb droppings on Japan?

[Louis VI the Fat]

The devastating results of the American bombs:





No, it's not Hiroshima or Nagasaki. It is Tokyo.

Japan had been under intense bombardement before the A-Bombs, and didn't give in. The atomic bombs, for all their shock value, were partly only an incremental upping of the stakes.



I am torn between two conflicting thoughts:
1) I would've loved to have dropped that bomb myself on Japan.
2) I am very saddened by the destruction, by the immense loss of life. So many people, who under other circumstances would've just led their peaceful lives. What a tragedy, what a cursed war. :mecry:


Thank God the US got the bomb first. I dare not think what would've happened had the Soviet Union, Germany or Japan been there first.

[TinCow]

Nice textbook response, but when applied to real life it doesn't really hold up - but maybe that's me being soft and not really liking nukes or anyone being nuked. As far as the arms manufacture/supply goes, conventional bombings would have taken out any arms factories without causing 200,000+ civilian casualties (most of which probably weren't involved in arms manufacture). This was not a targeted strike against military installations but an immoral and unjustifiable attack on the people of Japan themselves (the psychological warfare of carpet bombing taken to another level). It's what the US like to call "terrorism" nowadays and certainly would call terrorism if it was carried out against them.

There are also the long term effects of Nuclear attack to consider. This is what really makes it much worse than most other kinds of conventional bombing as it affects civilian people for many generations to come.

To be clear, I don't like nukes nor do I want anyone to be nuked.

I agree that it is terrorism, but there is this odd idea these days that 'terrorism' is not a legitimate form of warfare. Terrorism is as old as war itself, and is a very effective method of warfare. By modern standards, Rome's destruction of Carthage in 146 BC was terrorism. Pretty much any time you read about an army sacking a city, you're reading about terrorism. Vlad Tepes was a terrorist, in that he intentionally terrified his enemies with his acts. The Ottomans terrorized the Serbs in 1809 by constructing the Skull Tower. Americans used terror against the Brits in the Revolution, and both sides used it in the Vietnam War.

Terrorism has occurred in every war since the beginning of time, and it always will. We proudly represent 'morale' in our wargames, which is clear evidence of how important fear is in warfare. Terrorism is a direct attack on morale, without a separate military objective. von Clausewitz would argue that was a legitimate means of fighting, as would Sun Tzu. It may not be a nice method of fighting, but war is not a nice thing.

For many western nations, using terrorism in warfare is no longer considered beneficial as it causes more harm to the international perception of the nation using it than the benefits it brings. We can call it morality if we want, but it's a purely practical thing. Push any nation far enough, and it will use terrorism in its own defense.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Japan had been under intense bombardement before the A-Bombs, and didn't give in. The atomic bombs, for all their shock value, were partly only an incremental upping of the stakes.

I disagree. Thousands, if not millions, of bombs were dropped on Tokyo to achieve that result. Hiroshima ended up the same way with one.

Thank God the US got the bomb first. I dare not think what would've happened had the Soviet Union, Germany or Japan been there first.

Agreed.

[caravel]

1) I would've loved to have dropped that bomb myself on Japan.

[Vuk]

Agreed. I am extremely thankful that Hitler was defeated, but I am also thankful that I was not the one who had to kill his soldiers. Killing may be necessary some times, but it is never something you should enjoy. Even more so when the people being killed are innocent civilians and the killing completely unjustified.

[CBR]

We barely touched the industrial zones most times, and production always shot up afterward.

The air campaign against Germany was essentially a failure although it did cause a lot of temporary halts in various industries. When the synthetic fuel industry was targeted it was a great success though.

But the bombing of Japan pretty much destroyed most of the industry so to say it was barely touched is not true.

There are also the long term effects of Nuclear attack to consider. This is what really makes it much worse than most other kinds of conventional bombing as it affects civilian people for many generations to come.

Yes indeed but now you are also speaking with the benefit of hindsight. The stigma of nuclear weapons is there because of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as well as us living under 40 years of Cold War and the threat of MAD.

So although it was a new and horrific weapon it was at the same time similar to firebombing. They just needed one plane instead of a thousand for the job.


CBR

[Beefy187]

So although it was a new and horrific weapon it was at the same time similar to firebombing. They just needed one plane instead of a thousand for the job.

Except some people still suffer from the A bomb after effects.
On the brighter side, they finally won the law suit against the country, so they'll start getting little bit of financial support.

[Vuk]

The air campaign against Germany was essentially a failure although it did cause a lot of temporary halts in various industries. When the synthetic fuel industry was targeted it was a great success though.

But the bombing of Japan pretty much destroyed most of the industry so to say it was barely touched is not true.

I was speaking specifically about the bombing campaigns against Germany. We often failed to hit their important industries with a substantial amount of bombs, and a lot of times ignored infrastructure. Instead we hit the heavily populated and culturally important areas. What does that tell you?

[A Very Super Market]

It was easier to scare the civilians with strategic bombing than it was to purposefully aim for targets. When it came to night raids, there was no real way of identifying an industrial plant, a school, or a farmhouse in the darkness, and the entire place was simply lit up. All bombing are inherently terrible. In Hamburg, the firestorms swept away 42,000 civilians. Old Koenigsberg was entirely destroyed. The British were undeniably silly in their belief of a Germany-wide collapse, as they did nothing of the sort during the Blitz. But what else in WWII wasn't centred on destruction?

[CBR]

Except some people still suffer from the A bomb after effects.
On the brighter side, they finally won the law suit against the country, so they'll start getting little bit of financial support.

Yes that is true. I was speaking of how people saw the bombs back then.

I was speaking specifically about the bombing campaigns against Germany. We often failed to hit their important industries with a substantial amount of bombs, and a lot of times ignored infrastructure. Instead we hit the heavily populated and culturally important areas. What does that tell you?

Most industry was located near heavily populated areas and, as most German cities are rather old, they were all culturally important.

The US went for daylight bombings in an attempt to improve accuracy. They also did try to go for key industries like the ball-bearing industry at Schweinfurt which was hit multiple times.

Accuracy was still not very good though. THE UNITED STATES STRATEGIC BOMBING SURVEY p13:

Conventionally the air forces designated as "the target area" a circle having a radius of 1000 feet around the aiming point of attack. While accuracy improved during the war, Survey studies show that, in the over-all, only about 20% of the bombs aimed at precision targets fell within this target area. A peak accuracy of 70% was reached for the month of February 1945 .

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

It was easier to scare the civilians with strategic bombing than it was to purposefully aim for targets. When it came to night raids, there was no real way of identifying an industrial plant, a school, or a farmhouse in the darkness, and the entire place was simply lit up.

Unless they were located apart from each other, as was the case in places like Dresden. The Allies could easily have targeted the industrial center of Dresden rather than the cultural and residential areas, as the three were spaced apart. Scaring civilians wasn't easier either, since if anything it made them more eager to fight once their homes were destroyed and they had nothing left to lose.

The first rule of warfare should be to leave your opponents with something. If you deprive them of everything but a target, they will fight to the death.

[A Very Super Market]

I wasn't trying to justify anything that happened. It just happened to be easier to bomb a general location. It doesn't make any sense because the Brits went through the Blitz without surrendering. Dresden itself had little military industry to begin with, and its destruction seemed to have had the poorest explanations.

[Fisherking]

The bombs also need to be looked at in the light of Japanese barbarity, during the war.

The world knew of the Rape of Nanking, though perhaps not how bad it truly was. But that was only one of many massacres. Massacres of civilians.

Most people know of the atrocious treatment of military POWs but their treatment of the civilian population was worse if only because they were unarmed noncombatants.

They were also conducting biological warfare in China, using bubonic pelage as a military weapon.

The Japanese civilian population was also feared as a military threat. Stories of the rape murder and cannibalization of military prisoners by the civilian population had leaked out. Those reports were proven true.

Add to that slavery and enforced prostitution of civilians.

Given the choice of a protracted land battle with such people and the use of a terror weapon to end the war, what do you think you would have done.

[miotas]

"They did it too" or "At least we aren't as bad as them" is a bad reason to target civilians. Dropping it on a military base, or at the very least, waiting long enough for a response after Hiroshima would have made more sense.

[CountArach]

The bombs also need to be looked at in the light of Japanese barbarity, during the war.

The world knew of the Rape of Nanking, though perhaps not how bad it truly was. But that was only one of many massacres. Massacres of civilians.

Most people know of the atrocious treatment of military POWs but their treatment of the civilian population was worse if only because they were unarmed noncombatants.

They were also conducting biological warfare in China, using bubonic pelage as a military weapon.

The Japanese civilian population was also feared as a military threat. Stories of the rape murder and cannibalization of military prisoners by the civilian population had leaked out. Those reports were proven true.

Add to that slavery and enforced prostitution of civilians.

Given the choice of a protracted land battle with such people and the use of a terror weapon to end the war, what do you think you would have done.

Answering terror with terror is not the way to fight against these things though, so I think that argument is flawed from the outset.

[al Roumi]

I wasn't trying to justify anything that happened. It just happened to be easier to bomb a general location. It doesn't make any sense because the Brits went through the Blitz without surrendering. Dresden itself had little military industry to begin with, and its destruction seemed to have had the poorest explanations.

I agree and its not at all clear to me why bombing is still seen as a viable or even effective strategy -even as a morale weapon. I'm sure that at best, it has had mixed results -either protracting and intensifying a conflict or subduing it (as presumably intended).

The bombs also need to be looked at in the light of Japanese barbarity, during the war.

Oh yes: "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth", isn't that a great dictum with a glorious record of real-world applications.

[Fisherking]

"They did it too" or "At least we aren't as bad as them" is a bad reason to target civilians. Dropping it on a military base, or at the very least, waiting long enough for a response after Hiroshima would have made more sense.

That is a very nice idea but do you understand the difference between your moral outrage and historical context?

It is an interesting paradox that the easier it is to kill people the less moral be becomes.

The bombs were dropped to end a very vicious conflict in which millions had died and millions more expected to die.

While the citizens of the two cities may have been guiltless, the world held a sense of National Guilt with regard to the crimes of Japan.

You cannot measure it in the light of hindsight and postwar morality. It was a product of the times.

Even today we cannot prevent atrocities and the killing of civilians.

[Fisherking]

Answering terror with terror is not the way to fight against these things though, so I think that argument is flawed from the outset.

I am not trying to justify my actions you know. I am just trying to put the decision within the context of the times.

[CountArach]

I am not trying to justify my actions you know. I am just trying to put the decision within the context of the times.

Yes I understand, but the argument that you laid out is a flawed one, even if it is not an opinion that you hold yourself.

[Beefy187]

That is a very nice idea but do you understand the difference between your moral outrage and historical context?

It is an interesting paradox that the easier it is to kill people the less moral be becomes.

The bombs were dropped to end a very vicious conflict in which millions had died and millions more expected to die.

While the citizens of the two cities may have been guiltless, the world held a sense of National Guilt with regard to the crimes of Japan.

You cannot measure it in the light of hindsight and postwar morality. It was a product of the times.

Even today we cannot prevent atrocities and the killing of civilians.

Arguable. But the only crime of Japan was losing the war.
Theres plenty of war crimes that Americans, soviets, French and so on did as well which is left unsaid because they are the "good guys".

And some war crimes of axis are still being argued for their credibility.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I am not trying to justify my actions you know. I am just trying to put the decision within the context of the times.

Don't be too timid, or intimidated. Reading the internets nowadays, one starts to feel America and the allies have to justify their many WWII war crimes to their poor victims.

Pft.

I say, tell me why Germany and Japan should not have been bombed into defeat as soon as possible. Why not every means should've been used to win and end this war. I wish I would've had two hundred A-bombs in 1942. Or in 1937. I would've dropped them too.

Soul searching is good. So are humanitarian values. But there is such a thing as right and wrong. Even allowing for blurred lines and grey areas.
The - what's the proverb - the proof of the pudding is in the eating. How did Germany and Japan treat the peoples whom they defeated? And how, by comparison, did the (western) allies treat Germany and Japan after 1945? There is such a thing as good and bad, and good is justified in defeating bad.



On another level, I will shed a tear as much for the Germans and the Japanese as I do for everybody else. A lot of people suffered, died, who didn't deserve that. And many of those who did deserve it, would under other circumstances simply have lived out a peaceful life. But the ultimate responsibility lies not in Washington or London, but in Tokyo and Berlin.

[Beefy187]

I'm going to quote wiki and I know what happens when I do that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_..._War_II#Canada

This is what quick search got me. I won't say they are worse then axis. Surely we did awful things too. But allies weren't that different.

[Fisherking]

Yes I understand, but the argument that you laid out is a flawed one, even if it is not an opinion that you hold yourself.

An when was there a decision involving the killing of thousands not flawed in some way?

By our standards there is no justification. By theirs there seemingly were.

[Kralizec]

Should the allies have behaved decently, even if their opponents didn't? Yes. Was it realistic to expect they would?

Some of you however are trying to suggest that it was a cold-blooded decision, akin to plotting a premeditated murder while enjoying a good bottle of wine by the fireplace. It's easy to yell from the top of the hindsight tower (located just next to the ivory tower) that it was wrong and ineffective besides, and that the Blitz, the V-weapons or the torture of civilians and US servicemen in the Philipines didn't justify anything. But I don't pretend to have acted in a more enlightened way in that position, unlike some of you.

[Andres]

Don't be too timid, or intimidated. Reading the internets nowadays, one starts to feel America and the allies have to justify their many WWII war crimes to their poor victims.

There's no such thing as not enough information.

It's good to know as much as possible.

OTOH, it's difficult to know which sources are trustworthy and which aren't. But it's healthy to keep an open mind when studying history and to try to get information from as many sides as possible.

If the Allies have committed attrocities during WWII, then that knowledge should be available. I don't see nothing wrong with that.

Should we try to find out why those attrocities have been committed? Of course we should. Why would you want to avoid the inconvenient parts of the subject? Why should some things remain unsaid?

It's nonsensic to limit it to "teh Axis, teh bad, teh Allies, teh Good".

That would imply that there is such a thing as "a just war".

There isn't.

I wish I would've had two hundred A-bombs in 1942. Or in 1937. I would've dropped them too.

I think that's a nonsensical statement. Wouldn't your dropping of 200 atomic bombs have caused as many deads as the whole W.W. II event itself? Plus of course damage during centuries because of radiation?

***

As for the droppings of the bombs. No it wasn't "justified". War and acts of war can never be "justified", in my humble opinion. War is failure. But that viewpoint is all nice and good sitting in a comfortable chair when there's no actual war going on at your doorstep.

I don't know enough about the period, but are we 100 % that Japan was not on the edge of collapse and would have surrendered because they were already defeated? Wasn't it more of an honor thing that made it take so long before they agreed to surrender? How many diplomatic efforts have there been taken to come to an agreement with the Japanese before deciding to drop the bomb? Was Japan being unreasonably stubborn or was the US too impatient and in a hurry to drop the bomb? Was it an act of revenge or a necessity to end the conflict with as less victims as possible?

If it is true (which I don't know) that Japan was not going to surrender, under no circumstances, then I I agree most with Ser: it was probably necessary. The results were horrible, but maybe it was indeed better than a conventional invasion. I'm not sure if the second dropping was necessary though. Anyway, it ended the conflict and nobody can say what would have happened if Japan had been invaded.

Finding reliable and unbiased sources on the question if Japan was going to surrender or not, is probably crucial to answer the question whether it was necessary to drop the A-bombs.

Somebody has information on that?

[Fisherking]

Arguable. But the only crime of Japan was losing the war.
Theres plenty of war crimes that Americans, soviets, French and so on did as well which is left unsaid because they are the "good guys".

And some war crimes of axis are still being argued for their credibility.

I can only take that truly insulting remark as someone absurdly ignorant of the facts of history.

Perhaps you are not acquainted with the brutal murder of hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children perpetrated by the Japanese.

It surpassed the Germans in shear brutality and carelessness of human life if it did not surpass it in numbers.


I don’t believe that any of the allied nations ever had a massive campaign of rape, murder, torture, and extermination of civilians as part of their policies.

Start here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes

Likely only the cannibalism had it happened 200 years earlier, would have been of note, but to say it was only wrong because they lost is a bit disgusting.


One crime does not excuse another but still with the scope and magnitude you can see why they had less qualms on using such a weapon on that particular enemy.

[TinCow]

Wouldn't your dropping of 200 atomic bombs have caused as many deads as the whole W.W. II event itself? Plus of course damage during centuries because of radiation?

Radioactive fallout from nuclear weapons is nowhere near as bad as fallout from an accident like Chernobyl. Most estimate I have read on the subject indicate that most areas hit by nuclear weapons will no longer have significant radiation 1 year later, and definitely not longer than 5 years. The US government concedes exposure to ionizing radiation for soldiers who were stationed in Hiroshima or Nagasaki after the war, but only until July 1, 1946. Government estimates show no significant radiation risk after that date, and that's less than a year after the bombings.

That's not to say that radiation isn't a major side effect from nuclear weapons; it certainly is for anyone exposed to it. However, nuclear weapons definitely do not render an area radioactive for centuries.

If it is true (which I don't know) that Japan was not going to surrender, under no circumstances, then I I agree most with Ser: it was probably necessary. The results were horrible, but maybe it was indeed better than a conventional invasion. I'm not sure if the second dropping was necessary though. Anyway, it ended the conflict and nobody can say what would have happened if Japan had been invaded.

Finding reliable and unbiased sources on the question if Japan was going to surrender or not, is probably crucial to answer the question whether it was necessary to drop the A-bombs.

Somebody has information on that?

I have nothing to quote from at the moment, but I've done a lot of readings on the subject and my general impression is that the US believed Japan was not going to surrender, while it remains uncertain whether they actually would have. For the US, the decision was made after the language used by the Japanese to reject the Potsdam Declaration. Indications are that this was a language/cultural misunderstanding and that Japan was not quite as opposed to surrender as the direct translation of that term indicated.

There is decent evidence that Japan might have surrendered if the US had offered the same terms prior to the bombings (vague statements indicating the Emperor could remain on the throne) which they did after the bombings. At the same time, the situation prior to the bombings was vastly different than the situation after the bombings. Not only had the power of atomic weapons been demonstrated, but the Soviet Union had declared war and invaded the northern islands, and internal dissent within the Japanese government was becoming very serious.

Personally, I do not believe that the Japanese had any intention of surrendering prior to August 6th, at least not on any terms that were acceptable to the Allies. However, it is very difficult to tell whether they would eventually have made that decision without the atomic bombs and the Soviet attack. Maybe they would have reached the same agreement a month later, maybe longer, but it's far from certain. The Japanese DID reject the terms on July 27th. Even after the bombings and the Soviet attack on August 9th, the Japanese government was heavily divided on whether or not to surrender. A significant number wanted to continue fighting, and the pro-war faction even attempted a coup to keep the war going several days later.

IMO, while it was possible that the Japanese would have surrendered without the bomb, there was no way for the Allies to know that nor would it have been smart for them at the time to simply wait and see what was going to happen. I do not believe Truman can be fairly criticized for the decision, as it was right one to make at that time with the information available to him, even if the Japanese really would have surrendered later without the bombs.

[al Roumi]

Arguable. But the only crime of Japan was losing the war.
Theres plenty of war crimes that Americans, soviets, French and so on did as well which is left unsaid because they are the "good guys".

And some war crimes of axis are still being argued for their credibility.

I can only take that truly insulting remark as someone absurdly ignorant of the facts of history.

I interpreted it as an observation that the winner writes history. Had Germany and Japan won, no doubt we would be discussing allied atrocities and barbarism. At least, that's what I thought beefy was on about.

Surely there would have been war crimes trials for all RAF bomber command staff and pilots? -assuming they had somehow been able to bomb Germany as they did, and then lose the war.

[al Roumi]

I'm going to quote wiki and I know what happens when I do that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_..._War_II#Canada

This is what quick search got me. I won't say they are worse then axis. Surely we did awful things too. But allies weren't that different.

From the above link:

Unrestricted submarine warfare
In the Nuremberg Trial, German Admiral Karl Dönitz was tried, among other crimes, for issuing orders to target Allied civilians, a policy known as unrestricted submarine warfare. Dönitz was found guilty, but no sentence was imposed, because of evidence presented to the the Tribunal that the Royal Navy and the United States Navy had issued similar orders.

The US Navy applied the same policy to operations in the Pacific. According to Gary E. Weir of the US Naval Historical Center, because of the way war was waged in the Atlantic, "when Admiral Thomas C. Hart proclaimed unrestricted submarine warfare against Japan on 8 December 1941, it came as no surprise".

This provides an insight on how some war crimes have been judged, e.g.: a defendant can only really be punished if their opponent was not also utilising (or permiting) the same tactic.

[Vuk]

There's no such thing as not enough information.

It's good to know as much as possible.

OTOH, it's difficult to know which sources are trustworthy and which aren't. But it's healthy to keep an open mind when studying history and to try to get information from as many sides as possible.

If the Allies have committed attrocities during WWII, then that knowledge should be available. I don't see nothing wrong with that.

Should we try to find out why those attrocities have been committed? Of course we should. Why would you want to avoid the inconvenient parts of the subject? Why should some things remain unsaid?

It's nonsensic to limit it to "teh Axis, teh bad, teh Allies, teh Good".

That would imply that there is such a thing as "a just war".

There isn't.





I think that's a nonsensical statement. Wouldn't your dropping of 200 atomic bombs have caused as many deads as the whole W.W. II event itself? Plus of course damage during centuries because of radiation?

***

As for the droppings of the bombs. No it wasn't "justified". War and acts of war can never be "justified", in my humble opinion. War is failure. But that viewpoint is all nice and good sitting in a comfortable chair when there's no actual war going on at your doorstep.

I don't know enough about the period, but are we 100 % that Japan was not on the edge of collapse and would have surrendered because they were already defeated? Wasn't it more of an honor thing that made it take so long before they agreed to surrender? How many diplomatic efforts have there been taken to come to an agreement with the Japanese before deciding to drop the bomb? Was Japan being unreasonably stubborn or was the US too impatient and in a hurry to drop the bomb? Was it an act of revenge or a necessity to end the conflict with as less victims as possible?

If it is true (which I don't know) that Japan was not going to surrender, under no circumstances, then I I agree most with Ser: it was probably necessary. The results were horrible, but maybe it was indeed better than a conventional invasion. I'm not sure if the second dropping was necessary though. Anyway, it ended the conflict and nobody can say what would have happened if Japan had been invaded.

Finding reliable and unbiased sources on the question if Japan was going to surrender or not, is probably crucial to answer the question whether it was necessary to drop the A-bombs.

Somebody has information on that?

Japan had agreed to our surrender terms, but insisted they had to keep their emperor. We denied them that, massacred their populace, and then agreed to the exact same terms anyway! There was absolutely no need to drop those bombs.

As far as war goes, I disagree that there is no such thing as a just war. Defending yourself is justified. War (and killing in general) is loathsome, but unfortunately some times it is necessary. That does not make it good, but it certainly makes it just.

As to Louis, I am appalled at your attitude. It is very much akin to the attitude of a feuding redneck family. You cannot say, they started it, so we can do anything we want to them! Many of the bombings in Germany were simply Britain's way of getting revenge, and a way for the Allied Air Command to show the world (one country in particular) what they could do with a strategic bombing campaign. Do what you need to win the war being unjustly waged against you? Sure, absolutely. The thing is though, that the murder of millions of civilians has nothing to do with your effort to win the war, only with your efforts to subjugate a populace or wipe out a race.
You have to keep things in perspective and realize why you are doing what you are doing. You are fighting an enemies soldiers because they seek to take your country over. So you regrettably then kill the enemy soldiers to stop them. If you enemies are barbaric and kill, rape, enslave civilian populace, then you have a very real moral responsibility to bring the war to an end as soon as possible. Now you are fighting to stop the killing, raping, and enslaving of civilians, as well as to defend the integrity of your country. You cannot kill, rape, and enslave civilians to prevent the killing, raping, and enslaving of civilians! You are no longer preventing it, you are perpetrating it! You have now lost any moral justification, and because as base and inhumane as your enemy. Now any other country would have a legitimate reason to claim moral justification in attacking you. How does that help you?
You cannot say you are fighting to stop something evil, while you are using that something evil as a weapon!
The German and Japanese governments were without a doubt guilty of war crimes of the highest order, as were many soldiers. The governments and those soldiers who it could be fully proved played a part in this should have been executed after the war. By the same token though, we had a number of individual soldiers who also should have answered for their crimes. You cannot say that because there is the confusion of a war that the rape, torture, and murder of men, women, and children is justified. It is not, for anyone, anywhere, at any time.
Did the US commit war crimes? No, individuals soldiers did, against orders. That is what seperates them from the Japanese and Germans who acted on orders. (While that does not lessent he guilt of Japanese or German soldiers who commited such horrors, it does increase the guilt of the Americans IMO) I think it is stupid to condemn the allies for their involvement in WWII, but the individuals who commit crimes should have to accept punishment for them. It is something that happened a long time ago, and any facts are sure to be obscured, so I do not agree with the idea of capturing and trying German, Japanese, American, etc supposed war criminals, as it is impossible to give them a fair trial after all this time. (I think it is rather appalling that they did it to two Germans not to recently.)