American involvement in the Nuremberg trials set the stage for the modern era of international law. It began with the United States, along with the allied nations, constructing a post-facto legal definition of crime against humanity that somehow included the Holocaust but excluded both the American campaign in Japan and various Russian war crimes on the Western Front. It’s not cynicism to point out the clear hypocrisy.
Not to mention Jim Crow was still in full effect in the US at the time, but somehow wasn't deemed "Crime against humanity". The winners truly do control the history.
Was Jim Crow a federally organized policy bent on extermination? It was state level discrimination that Nazi Germany copied in 1933-1938 to deal with their “Jewish problem”. By 1939 you had formal government-enforced ghettos with forced labor (no equivalent in America at the time) and by 1941 you had mass extinction.
Don’t get me wrong - Jim Crow was horrific. But it was state level after effects of the civil war and failure to establish absolute dominance over the southern states in reconstruction. Cultural problems we fought a civil war over and we’re still dealing with today. But one difference of the goal with slavery and Jim Crow is subjugation not extermination
Subjugation or extermination, if it wasn't for the addition of "as part of a war of aggression" to the "Crimes against Humanity", the US would have been considered as participating in crimes against humanity at the same time they were partcipating in the Nuremberg trials.
It's thanks to the US, that crimes against humanity is only considered when there is an active war of aggression, precisely because Jim Crow was a current thing at that time.
I don't think there are many Japanese alive today not aware of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. While it's true they didn't place Japanese in internment cam.. no wait, they did do that. While it's true they didn't straight up execute Japanese folks on the street, they did effectively erase two cities from the world map, how that isn't a "Crime against Humanity", I don't know why we even have the label.
So yeah, the US didn't spend years doing horrible stuff to humans like the Nazis did, the US wasn't exactly an angel in that conflict, by a long shot. But neither was pretty much any nation, I guess it kind comes with the whole "world war" thing.
> they did effectively erase two cities from the world map
They're still there last time I checked. Hiroshima has a population of ~1m. Nagasaki closer to 300k.
> how that isn't a "Crime against Humanity"
An invasion of Japan would have cost an order of magnitude more lives. It was the 4th year of an extremely bitter conflict that Japan started. There were no real good options on the table. Only "shit" and "extremely shit".
> They're still there last time I checked. Hiroshima has a population of ~1m. Nagasaki closer to 300k.
This is an argument by equivocation. There’s still a “World Trade Center” in NYC but it’s not the one that fell in 2001. Nor does saying it’s so restore the dead to life.
> An invasion of Japan would have cost an order of magnitude more lives. It was the 4th year of an extremely bitter conflict that Japan started. There were no real good options on the table. Only "shit" and "extremely shit".
This is a legal defense strategy that was never heard before an international tribunal because, notably, one was never held.
I don’t have the energy to skim through the Nuremberg transcripts right now, but I also believe “it was the best of bad options” was a legal defense attempted there, with mixed results.
EDIT: I’m being rate limited, so I can’t answer any more questions today. But suffice it to say that in Truman’s place I would have extended the relative protection that Kyoto received to every large Japanese city and contained the air force to bombing primarily military and industrial targets, with the understanding that precision bombing was not as advanced in 1940s as it is today.
> in Truman’s place I would have extended the relative protection that Kyoto received to every large Japanese city and contained the air force to bombing primarily military and industrial targets
Japan had dispersed industrial production widely by that point, including into workshops in people's homes. The Allies were already doing regular bombing.
Japan outright refused to surrender. They had a faction that tried a coup to prevent the surrender even after the nuclear bombings. Regular bombs would surely not have been enough. Strategic bombing doesn't work.[1]
What's your next idea?
I read the article you posted with alternatives. Delaying the second bomb - good idea, but it still means one was dropped. Allowing the Soviets to invade - it's hard to say having Japan divided for 40-odd years like Germany ended up would've been a better outcome, but idk perhaps.
I mean, you are the one arguing that they were erased from the map when clearly they were not. And either way, to say that millions of Americans should have died to invade a country that sided with the Nazis and killed bajillions of Chinese and Koreans unjustly is simply incorrect.
All out war is hell and pretending like civilians get a pass from the wave of destruction is naive.
However, one main difference people in this thread seem to forget is that America’s civilian kills were about dealing damage to an enemy country within enemy territory. It’s horrific but the main difference was that Germany mass executed and actively tortured civilians within its own territory. America never did that and as horrific and regrettable Japanese internment camps were, and full of racism and prejudice, and failing to even uphold the Constitution and just being abject failures in treating people humanely, comparing them to Nazi concentration camps indicates a complete and utter failure in understanding how different the situation was; America was not trying to actively exterminate Japanese citizens within its borders as a matter of policy.
The closest American came to Nazi Germany was the persecution of black people within its borders but even while Nazi germany was inspired by Jim Crow in terms of how to treat Jews, it’s a failure to recognize that Nazi Germany ran off with the idea when they started setting up death camps. The closest American came to that was lynchings which never reached the scale or official government sanction that concentration camps did.
The closest American could be said to have done that was the Trail of Tears and their treatment of Native Americans; American has always struggled to contain the racist instincts of a significant part of their population but it is not unique in this challenge.
> All out war is hell and pretending like civilians get a pass from the wave of destruction is naive.
Collateral damage is one thing, the deliberate targeting civilians en masse is another. I understand the US Armed Forces and IDF currently justify their excesses by blurring the two concepts together, but they are legally distinct concepts.
In no way am I excusing the horrible treatment black people and indigenous people have received in the USA. It’s awful and definitely crimes that should have been prosecuted and the failure to do so is a stain on America and the ideals people want it to hold. But noting that it’s qualitatively and quantitatively different from a government organized industrial extermination machine doesn’t seem like something crazy. And pretending like power dynamics aren’t in play in terms of prosecuting Nazis is naive - it’s literally what Nazis said at the Nuremberg trials - it’s a sham trial because it’s just the victors killing the defeated. But it did manage to establish some kind of minimum legal framework even if it’s not as far as we’d have liked. Also important to remember that the US committed abhorrent legitimate war crimes in Vietnam even by Nuremberg standards - but the US is a super power and it’s an unsolved problem about who will hold a superpower (or even a nuclear power) to count for crimes against humanity.
Of course this argument never uses the much more horrifying and abysmal firebombing of Tokyo, because it doesn't come from a place of historical knowledge, but rather trite lies.
Hell, the Allies told Japan (literally) "Surrender or face prompt and utter destruction", while Japan knew they were utterly cooked and already lost the war like a year ago, and they simply ignored it. Japan was not totally ignorant of the concept of a nuclear weapon either, as they had competent physicists and a low effort nuclear weapons program.
If you do not want your city turned to ash, do not START a war of aggression on your neighbors and the damn world because of imperial ambitions, and then do not continue such war long after it was clear you had already lost, including instructing and training your citizens to die en masse for the emperor.
The Japanese were actively trying to erase a billion people. Actions have consequences.
There was no end to Imperial Japan without just staggering death of japanese people. It doesn't matter whether that death came from Chinese soldiers or nuclear fire or Russian waves or American Marines.
If you don't want people to kill you, start by not becoming an absurd cartoon villain.
Imperial Japan was the exact horrific Fascism as the Nazis, and anything less than unconditional surrender was unacceptable.
Internment was fucking awful, and I think it's very telling we never interned German Americans even though we knew Germans DID sabotage US industries during WW1 but I guess Germans are too white for the racist Americans who thought Hitler was a cool guy to get uppity about.
> Of course this argument never uses the much more horrifying and abysmal firebombing of Tokyo,
For what it’s worth, I did try to limit my claims in this thread to the notion that maybe the firebombing of Tokyo was a crime against humanity, and avoid yet another pointless relitigation of the use nuclear weaponry.
I don’t know what to make of your whataboutism, however. Nobody here is arguing that the Tokyo tribunal should not have been held, as far as I can tell.
