Thread 17752109

>the Nanking massacre was illegal because it deliberately killed civilians
>the firebombing of Tokyo was legal despite deliberately killing civilians
? Is killing civilians legal or illegal?

>>17752109 (OP)
it's legal as long as you win. vae victis

shouldn't have put your factories in cities then

>>17752109 (OP)
>deliberately killing civilians in Tokyo
Except that's where you are wrong.

>>17752121
Shouldn't have hid partisans amongst civilians then (Nanking).

>>17752109 (OP)
They were warned, why not just leave lol

>>17752130
Umm? Do you actually study history?

https://virginiahistory.org/learn/black-snow-curtis-lemay-firebombing-tokyo-and-road-atomic-bomb
>Most importantly, the raid represented a significant moral shift for America, marking the first-time commanders deliberately targeted civilians

>>17752158
Why didn't the Chinese just leave all of China for the Japanese? They wouldn't have done Nanking if China just completely surrendered.

>>17752109 (OP)
Raping and torturing people over the course of weeks is worse than dropping bombs on them from 10,000 feet for one night. Therefore it demonstrates a greater malice.

>>17752171
Burning alive is one of the most painful deaths imaginable.
That aside, that doesn't address the legality.

Congratulations OP

You have seen through the blatant hypocrisy of the west

>>17752175
>Burning alive is one of the most painful deaths imaginable.
So is being raped and tortured while your daughter or sister or mother is similarly violated before being brutally killed with a bayonet up the coochy.
>This doesn't address the legality
Yeah it does, retard. Malice and aggression are taken into account when sentencing or determining a crime. That's why it's called aggregated assault. Dropping bombs from the sky demonstrates none of the inherent malice and criminal intent to cause undue suffering that comes with a campaign of rape and torture. It's destroying a city that holds war material and maintains rail junctions that allow the enemy to continue to resist. Raping someone doesn't stop them from shipping rifles to the front lines. Dropping incindiary bombs and burning that shit heap to the ground does. There's no justification for rape and torture. There's no good reason to NOT drop firebombs on rail junctions and enemy industries if you want to end the war.

>>17752109 (OP)
It's illegal to lose a war.

>>17752208
>Malice and aggression are taken into account when sentencing or determining a crime
Not in war, idiot.

>>17752208
>Raping someone doesn't stop them from shipping rifles to the front lines.
Uhh, yes it does. They can't do that while being raped.

You just be a woman.

>>17752208
>firebombs on rail junctions and enemy industries
See >>17752165

>>17752165
>James Scott
Ah yes. The totally unbiased "historian" who's book you are quoting is just pointing at LeMay and saying "bombs dropped from planes are bad".

>>17752109 (OP)
The alleged Nanking massacre never happened

>>17752121
America had the most advanced bombing navigation in the world during the war. If they wanted to do strategic bombing of factories and military instillations they could’ve. Instead they used the terrorist tactic of carpet bombing civilians

>>17752130
The strategy of Curtis LeMay was to carpet bomb civilians

>>17752158
Why didn’t americans leave the twin towers before they were hit?

>>17752505
>boo hoo hooo!
Tokyo and Kyoto were actually the bombs original targets but the US chose Hiroshima and Nagasaki instead in order to avoid destroying historic and culturally significant buildings. The US gave Japan about as much grace as people who deliberately shot at field medics and sent balloon bombs to Alaska deserved

>>17752171
>Raping and torturing people over the course of weeks
Never happened
>>17752208
>raped and tortured while your daughter or sister or mother is similarly violated before being brutally killed with a bayonet up the coochy.
Any proof of this?

>>17752510
Japan didn’t target civilians, America did. The US is a war criminal nation

>>17752515
>The US is a war criminal nation
You're not even Japanese, you're a seething brownoid

>>17752505
the "most advanced navigation" during the war still involved drawing on paper maps with pencils, and looking for landmarks out of the window. It's not like they had satnavs.

>Japan didn't target civili-ACK!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731

>>17752520
Actually I’m white, unlike you

>>17752522
America did strategic bombing over Germany. They could’ve done it over Japan as well if they wanted too

>>17752527
>believe soviet propaganda
lol

>>17752240
They very clearly are, retard. That's why massacres are criminal but bombing is ok as long as it's justifiable
>>17752241
It's inefficient tho, needlessly so.
>>17752242
>Over half of Tokyo's industry was spread out among residential and commercial neighborhoods; firebombing cut the city's industrial output in half. [3]
Frankly the city planners are to blame more than the bombers.
>>17752511
>Never happened
Shut up, Fujiyama
>Any proof of this?
From December 13, 1937, for six weeks[a] (traditional historiography), atrocities in the Nanjing Area began December 4, 1937 and ended March 28, 1938[1]
>[2]Library of Congress, ed. (November 1948). Judgment International Military Tribunal for the Far East The Pacific War (PDF). p. 1015.

>>17752515
>Japan didn’t target civilians
Both sides did. We just did it better.

>>17753013
>That's why massacres are criminal but bombing is ok as long as it's justifiable
Wrong again.

>>17752527
Unit 731 was not charged for any crimes during the trials.
That aside, nobody said that.

>>17753843
I accept your concession

>>17753848
So if the Nazis gathered all the Jews into a single spot and then bombed them from the air, that's legal?
You have such woman logic.

>>17752380
LeMay himself said it was bad. You're arguing against the man who did the deed himself.

>>17753852
First off, I already accepted your concession so there's no need to further humiliate yourself. Unless it's a fetish thing.
Secondly, you'll note that bombing is ok as long as it's JUSTIFIABLE. Gathering up a crowd of Jews into a field and carpet bombing it isn't justifiable as a method of ending the war. That's just a cartoonish image.
>Such woman logic
Coming from the retard who's trying to say that bayoneting women and children is ok because the soldiers feewings were hurt by the mean ol Chinese soldiers trying not to be massacred?

>>17753862
LeMay also said
"Use overwhelming force. Deliberately use too much force. Better to err on the side of caution, and use too much, rather than too little. In dropping more ordinance than necessary, and launching an overwhelming attack, you devastate the enemy, and end the fight shorter, which ultimately saves lives, both yours and the enemy's"
His argument is sound, and WWII kind of demonstrates his theory was correct.

>>17753892
'I suppose if I had lost the war, I would have been tried as a war criminal'.
- Curtis LeMay

>>17753873
>as long as it's JUSTIFIABLE
There's no objective way to determine that, stupid woman.

>>17753892
So if Japan nuked America and China, to end the war quicker, that's a good thing?

>>17754176
Does it
>Destroy the enemy's abilty to wage war?
>Involve minimal loss of human life?
>If not, would its continued existence prolong the war to an unacceptable degree?
Answer in the affirmative to two out of three questions and it's justified by any objective measure. Now fuck off Fukuyama, and make more anime.

>>17752109 (OP)
If you win the war it's legal, if you lose the war it's illegal and you will be punished. The law is a bludgeon of the elite, nothing more.

>>17754178
Wouldn't have ended the war. It'd just earn a full on glassing on their part.

>>17754375
That's not what objective means.

>>17754379
>we (USA, China) wouldn't surrender even if you nuked us!
>omg those crazy Japs thought about continuing to fight even after the nukes? How absurd, should have surrendered after the first one!
Really makes me think.

>>17754381
Incorrect.
Demonstrate how it's not objective within a sentence.

>>17754383
The nukes were just the cherry on top of an avalanche of losses they had already suffered. They were in no position to bomb or nuke anyone except at the very beginning of the war as a resource poor island.

>>17754397
It's called a hypothetical. Do you have aphantasia?

>>17752109 (OP)
Japs started it

>>17754412
>They [Neutrality Acts] were spurred by the growth in isolationism and non-interventionism in the US following the US joining World War I, and they sought to ensure that the US would not become entangled again in foreign conflicts

>Japan invaded China in July 1937, starting the Second Sino-Japanese War. President Roosevelt, who supported the Chinese side, chose not to invoke the Neutrality Acts

>>17754415
>>Destroy the enemy's abilty to wage war?
Objective
>>Involve minimal loss of human life?
Objective
>>If not, would its continued existence prolong the war to an unacceptable degree?
Objective

These are all easily quantified.

>>17754411
It's a stupid hypothetical that hinges upon the emotional appeal, making it a dogshit argument.

>>17752109 (OP)
Is always illegal but war itself is

>>17754172
Yes and? He would be tried with or without warcrimes so the point is moot

>>17754420
You do realize the US supported both China and Japan in 1937 right? Why is it okay to help Japan but not China?

>>17752109 (OP)
>I suppose if I had lost the war, I would have been tried as a war criminal
>Curtis LeMay
victor's justice is the rule, has been since it was vae victis

>>17754859
You're just retarded.

>>17754855
You barely understand English. You're a chink.

>Japan starts shit
>Gets hit
>Cries about it
Why the fuck do we hate the west and not these retards?
If you didn't want shit to happen to you you shouldn't have invaded manchuria.

>>17755196
Umm, no they didn't. The U.S. sent weapons to China.

>>17756742
>the USA decides who on planet earth gets to invade who
>all invasions require USA approval otherwise it's illegal and immoral
Really makes me think.

>>17754855
You barely understand English. You're a ch*nk.

>>17752109 (OP)
>Is killing civilians legal or illegal?
Depends on if you win or lose the war.

>>17756748
I accept your concession

>>17756746
Yeah, basically. Lol

>>17756745
And the USA also supplied Japan oil. Your point?

>>17758022
Japan bought oil. That's called trade. They were buying oil before any war. America GAVE weapons to China.

>>17758275
>gave
Except China also bought those weapons too dullard

>US bombing Tokyo
Had a strategic purpose of neutering Japan’s military industrialism and hastening surrender from a country that at that point had no chance of winning the war
>Nanking
Japs chimping out and killing/raping civilians for no purpose other than they felt like it

>>17752109 (OP)
>? Is killing civilians legal or illegal?
In theory, it depends on whether it's the side effect of hitting a legitimate target or not.
The massacre happened after the city was taken, the firebombing was part of a strategic bombing campaign.
You can quibble all you want about the morality of carpet bombing, fact is it was legal up until 1977.
Besides, in practice everything is legal as long as you win anyway.

>>17752109 (OP)
I always get a chuckle out of weebs being hyper critical of the U.S. in the one war where they genuinely literally dindu nuffin wrong.

>>17752109 (OP)
getting into war with japan was a means to an end my goy friend because hitler wouldnt take the bait and just attack a US ship after roosevelts jewish lawyer cooked up lend lease

>>17758467
No they didn't.

>>17758793
'And he went on from Tokyo to firebomb other cities. 58% of Yokohama. Yokohama is roughly the size of Cleveland. 58% of Cleveland destroyed. Tokyo is roughly the size of New York. 51% percent of New York destroyed. 99% of the equivalent of Chattanooga, which was Toyama. 40% of the equivalent of Los Angeles, which was Nagoya. This was all done before the dropping of the nuclear bomb, which by the way was dropped by LeMay's command. Proportionality should be a guideline in war. Killing 50% to 90% of the people of 67 Japanese cities and then bombing them with two nuclear bombs is not proportional, in the minds of some people, to the objectives we were trying to achieve'.
- Robert McNamara

>>17752112
>>17752179
>>17752211
>>17753076
>>17754378
>>17755355
>>17756937
Truth.

>>17758798
Also truth:

When asked, "Will historians know more later?", Kimmel replied, "' ... I'll tell you what I believe. I think that most of the incriminating records have been destroyed. ... I doubt if the truth will ever emerge.' ..." From Vice Admiral Libby, "I will go to my grave convinced that FDR ordered Pearl Harbor to let happen. He must have known."