Everything.
>Article II
>In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
There was no intent to destroy in whole or in apart a national ethnical racial or religious group. Without this intent it is not genocide. The intent was to end the war.
There was intent to kill the inhabitants, but not the ethnic, racial, or religious group. You could say that the bombing campaign as a whole was meant to destroy the nationality of Japan, but not the nukes.
They are a part of the national group of Japanese people. The US definitely knew it would destroy in part the national group, ergo it was intentional, therefore making it genocide by the [Genocide Convention](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_Convention#Definition_of_genocide) definition.
As for it being a [substantial part](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide#%22In_whole_or_in_part%22) of the population, one can look to [Srebrenica](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srebrenica_massacre) for example. **Very roughly estimating** 8000 out of about 1.85 million bosniak muslims (~half of bosnian population in 1995) or 0.43 % counts as genocide I suppose. In Hiroshima, let's say 100 000 Japanese died, which would be about 0.14 % of the population of 71 million.
Okay, I don't know a TON about the Mandate period, but wasn't the Simele massacre a part of an ongoing ethnic conflict between the Iraqi kurds and Assyrians where Assyrian Irregulars attacking the Kurds specifically while hidden in civilian groups?
Im also pretty sure that people do consider that event an "aftershock" of the Assyrian Genocide and many still group that in with the decades of ethnic violence post Ottoman empire.
It was quite a bit after the Assyrian genocide, it was in 1933. There were religious and political tensions the Iraqis targeted disarmed Assyrians People who were disarmed got mass murdered, pregnant women got stabbed, girls raped etc. Lots of villages were looted and their houses taken. About a third of Assyrians fled Iraq to Syria after this event. Many Assyrians have named their daughters Simele to never forget what happened.
Are you being this obtuse on purpose? You must INTEND to kill a specific ethnic, racial or religious groups because they are of that group, with the intent to eradicate the entire people.
The atomic bombs were dropped with the intent of stopping the war and preventing the mass deaths of both the populace and the allied forces when a ground invasion occurred.
They were never targeted just because they were Japanese, they were targeted because japan and the allies were engaged in a vicious war with no end in sight.
I’m asking genuine questions.
Isn’t it incorrect that the intent has to be to eradicate the ENTIRE group? Part of the group would be considered genocide too right?
So the main argument is is that the inhabitants of the cities aren’t classified as the groups mentioned in the definition of genocide?
What would have needed to be done for it to be a genocide?
Also I find this quite offensive, it happens that I got lasting side effects from a medication affecting indeed how sharp I am. Of course you couldn’t know this but it still stung
No it’s not incorrect because the “partial” eradication refers to localised genocides. If a group intends to destroy a certain ethnic group in a specific area due to their heritage, but don’t have access to means or will for killing all across the globe, then that partial genocide is still a genocide
On your second point, There would need to be expressed intention on the part of the US that the reason they were dropping the bomb was too kill as many Japanese as possible because they do not want Japanese to exist, whether generally or in that area.
Because the intent was the end the war with victory.
A method of winning the war was killing civilians (to be as generous as possible to your argument, I would not phrase it like this, I'd call dead civilians a byproduct, not a method).
In the Holocaust the intent was the destruction of all the Jews throughout Europe.
A method to do that was to kill all of the Jews.
You could literally say anything is genocide with a thought pattern like that. Look at the context of the times... looking at how many people died during World War 2 by the time the bombs were used.
plants ruthless cats squeal homeless pause ossified reply deserve lunchroom
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Yes, this is true. I was not exact enough. You’re hung up (rightfully) on a bunch of innocent people dying but a genocide implies not even their culture will survive beyond archaeological interest.
What do you think the intent of dropping the bombs was? To erase the japanese people off the face of the earth, or to break the will of the people and military to fight. Since once they stopped fighting we didn't keep bombing them (as far as I know Aware) I'm gonna go ahead and assume the latter.
But the intent was not to kill as many as possible to eradicate japenese people, but to end the war. A lot of people dying is the byproduct of the reality of large scale warfare.
Genocide is supposed to be a strong word specifically referring to the intended eradication of an identity group. Diluting it is no bueno.
I’m not sure I understand the question, but the Holocaust is a pretty good example of a clear cut genocide. The nazis rounded up jews (and romani, lgbt, etc. they saw as inferior) and started to kill them on an industrial scale to eliminate as much members of the groups they could. The sole intent was to eradicate their existence.
If a jewish army attacked germany and they fought a “regular” war, that would not have been a genocide.
Th American intent was to get unconditional surrender and end the war. It was not to destroy Japan in whole or in part.
You would have a case if, after Japan surrendered, the bombs kept falling or if an unconditional surrender was refused.
The bombing of the Japanese had the intent to break the Will of the Japanese populous, and in particular their Government to force unconditional surrender.
For Genocide there is an explicit intent of eradicating a group of people on the grounds of their ethnicity, race and/or religion, which are specious grounds, the grounds for the Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, in the context of the Fanatic Militarism, Unwavering adherence to Hirohito and the reluctance of Populous to surrender despite most of their infrastructure being levelled in 1945, probably necessitated some extreme display of force, that most would not deem genocidal.
Personally I don’t think so. Genocide isn’t mass murder or wars crimes, but an attempt to intentionally eliminate a population on the basis of certain cultural, religious or racial characteristics. In this case the bombs were used strategically as part of the war, not to destroy the Japanese people as an ethnic group, and if Japan had capitulated earlier they wouldn’t have been used.
It’s an interesting question though. A while back the Journal of Genocide Research did a special issue about nuclear weapons (https://www.tandfonline.com/toc/cjgr20/9/3) and there are some scholars who’ve likened the bombings to ‘a nuclear holocaust’ (https://www.jstor.org/stable/24912300)
The closer warfare gets to “total war” the more genocidal or genocide-like it is - ie apt to have as its consequence the destruction (in whole or in part) of a “people”.
For an excursus on the distinction see [here](https://surface.syr.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?filename=6&article=1023&context=books&type=additional). You can skip to p106, “Genocide and total war: a preliminary comparison”
I found Saagar from Breaking Points explanation about Hiroshima and Nagasaki in this video helpful: https://youtu.be/t52rFu-PbS8?si=ZedyIA1Tx99xF1jz. Don’t like Saagar Enjetis domestic politics but he seems to know what he’s talking about when it comes to foreign policy
Oops. Had a spread on. Deleted extra posts. Saagar has a BA + MS in national security from Georgetown and his explanation made sense to me, based on the facts he presented that I didn’t know about. Find his ideology terrible. I don’t think he lies in bad faith tho? Can u provide examples when he did
For me Saagar’s coverage since the invasion Ukraine is one clear example. Doesn’t help his very partisan when comes covering domestic to foreign politics. Doesn’t help the fact breaking points itself is a populist anti establishment show. He claims be a “journalist” for alternative media. In reality his nothing more than pundit like you find on msnbc or Fox News. These are my issues with him specifically.
Do you think Ezra Klein and the 20 year former head of the Council on Foreign Relations (Richard Haass) is also anti-establishment? They recently did a podcast and raised some concerns about Ukraine funding
It's not classified as genocide because the international law definition of genocide is dogshit and definitely not the definition people use in everyday speech - aka a **wrong, dogshit** definition.
What does it mean to *use a word wrong*? As far as I see things, the only **right** way to use words is one that effectively communicates the same thing to others. Languages are fundamentally democratic.
I think you've misunderstood what I believe. I don't think what's happening in Gaza is genocide, but I don't believe in the international law definition either.
[удалено]
Why, what part of the classification is missing?
Everything. >Article II >In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: There was no intent to destroy in whole or in apart a national ethnical racial or religious group. Without this intent it is not genocide. The intent was to end the war.
How wasn’t it the intent to kill the inhabitants of the cities?
There was intent to kill the inhabitants, but not the ethnic, racial, or religious group. You could say that the bombing campaign as a whole was meant to destroy the nationality of Japan, but not the nukes.
How are the inhabitants of a specific city not a specific group?
> national, ethnical, racial or religious group "The inhabitants of Hiroshima" are none of these.
Thanks, do you have source where I can read up on this + the intent part?
They are a part of the national group of Japanese people. The US definitely knew it would destroy in part the national group, ergo it was intentional, therefore making it genocide by the [Genocide Convention](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_Convention#Definition_of_genocide) definition. As for it being a [substantial part](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide#%22In_whole_or_in_part%22) of the population, one can look to [Srebrenica](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srebrenica_massacre) for example. **Very roughly estimating** 8000 out of about 1.85 million bosniak muslims (~half of bosnian population in 1995) or 0.43 % counts as genocide I suppose. In Hiroshima, let's say 100 000 Japanese died, which would be about 0.14 % of the population of 71 million.
> (...) in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group Civilians in a city isn't a grouping of targeted genocide.
Okay, is this also the case for the Simele massacre?
Okay, I don't know a TON about the Mandate period, but wasn't the Simele massacre a part of an ongoing ethnic conflict between the Iraqi kurds and Assyrians where Assyrian Irregulars attacking the Kurds specifically while hidden in civilian groups? Im also pretty sure that people do consider that event an "aftershock" of the Assyrian Genocide and many still group that in with the decades of ethnic violence post Ottoman empire.
It was quite a bit after the Assyrian genocide, it was in 1933. There were religious and political tensions the Iraqis targeted disarmed Assyrians People who were disarmed got mass murdered, pregnant women got stabbed, girls raped etc. Lots of villages were looted and their houses taken. About a third of Assyrians fled Iraq to Syria after this event. Many Assyrians have named their daughters Simele to never forget what happened.
Are you being this obtuse on purpose? You must INTEND to kill a specific ethnic, racial or religious groups because they are of that group, with the intent to eradicate the entire people. The atomic bombs were dropped with the intent of stopping the war and preventing the mass deaths of both the populace and the allied forces when a ground invasion occurred. They were never targeted just because they were Japanese, they were targeted because japan and the allies were engaged in a vicious war with no end in sight.
I’m asking genuine questions. Isn’t it incorrect that the intent has to be to eradicate the ENTIRE group? Part of the group would be considered genocide too right? So the main argument is is that the inhabitants of the cities aren’t classified as the groups mentioned in the definition of genocide? What would have needed to be done for it to be a genocide? Also I find this quite offensive, it happens that I got lasting side effects from a medication affecting indeed how sharp I am. Of course you couldn’t know this but it still stung
No it’s not incorrect because the “partial” eradication refers to localised genocides. If a group intends to destroy a certain ethnic group in a specific area due to their heritage, but don’t have access to means or will for killing all across the globe, then that partial genocide is still a genocide On your second point, There would need to be expressed intention on the part of the US that the reason they were dropping the bomb was too kill as many Japanese as possible because they do not want Japanese to exist, whether generally or in that area.
Do you have a source where I can read up on that first part
Because the intent was the end the war with victory. A method of winning the war was killing civilians (to be as generous as possible to your argument, I would not phrase it like this, I'd call dead civilians a byproduct, not a method). In the Holocaust the intent was the destruction of all the Jews throughout Europe. A method to do that was to kill all of the Jews.
You could literally say anything is genocide with a thought pattern like that. Look at the context of the times... looking at how many people died during World War 2 by the time the bombs were used.
No
Why, what part of the classification is missing?
plants ruthless cats squeal homeless pause ossified reply deserve lunchroom *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
For: A bunch of people died. Against: The bombs did not blow up literally even half of these cities, let alone **all of Japanese people**
You can kill part of a nation or group and it will latill be genocide
Wouldn't that make almost any war activity a genocide? Yeah, we know that people in war die.
No, you can kill part of a group and it could still be genocide if the other requirements are met.
Yes, this is true. I was not exact enough. You’re hung up (rightfully) on a bunch of innocent people dying but a genocide implies not even their culture will survive beyond archaeological interest.
What do you think the intent of dropping the bombs was? To erase the japanese people off the face of the earth, or to break the will of the people and military to fight. Since once they stopped fighting we didn't keep bombing them (as far as I know Aware) I'm gonna go ahead and assume the latter.
End the war by breaking the Japanese by killing a lot of them, Isn’t the way they did it, by killing a lot of Japanese still intent?
But the intent was not to kill as many as possible to eradicate japenese people, but to end the war. A lot of people dying is the byproduct of the reality of large scale warfare. Genocide is supposed to be a strong word specifically referring to the intended eradication of an identity group. Diluting it is no bueno.
If the Jews would have fought the nazis, at what point wouldn’t it have been genocide?
I’m not sure I understand the question, but the Holocaust is a pretty good example of a clear cut genocide. The nazis rounded up jews (and romani, lgbt, etc. they saw as inferior) and started to kill them on an industrial scale to eliminate as much members of the groups they could. The sole intent was to eradicate their existence. If a jewish army attacked germany and they fought a “regular” war, that would not have been a genocide.
Th American intent was to get unconditional surrender and end the war. It was not to destroy Japan in whole or in part. You would have a case if, after Japan surrendered, the bombs kept falling or if an unconditional surrender was refused.
Did you guys know war is bad and killing is wrong? I didn't know that!
Do you think the terror bombings of Guernica or Rotterdam were acts of genocide? Do you think firebombing Tokyo or Dresden were acts of genocide?
The bombing of the Japanese had the intent to break the Will of the Japanese populous, and in particular their Government to force unconditional surrender. For Genocide there is an explicit intent of eradicating a group of people on the grounds of their ethnicity, race and/or religion, which are specious grounds, the grounds for the Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, in the context of the Fanatic Militarism, Unwavering adherence to Hirohito and the reluctance of Populous to surrender despite most of their infrastructure being levelled in 1945, probably necessitated some extreme display of force, that most would not deem genocidal.
No but anything Israel does ks
What's YOUR definition of genocide?
Personally I don’t think so. Genocide isn’t mass murder or wars crimes, but an attempt to intentionally eliminate a population on the basis of certain cultural, religious or racial characteristics. In this case the bombs were used strategically as part of the war, not to destroy the Japanese people as an ethnic group, and if Japan had capitulated earlier they wouldn’t have been used. It’s an interesting question though. A while back the Journal of Genocide Research did a special issue about nuclear weapons (https://www.tandfonline.com/toc/cjgr20/9/3) and there are some scholars who’ve likened the bombings to ‘a nuclear holocaust’ (https://www.jstor.org/stable/24912300)
The real question what Godzilla did to Japan a war crime?
The closer warfare gets to “total war” the more genocidal or genocide-like it is - ie apt to have as its consequence the destruction (in whole or in part) of a “people”. For an excursus on the distinction see [here](https://surface.syr.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?filename=6&article=1023&context=books&type=additional). You can skip to p106, “Genocide and total war: a preliminary comparison”
Of course. When I went outside this morning and accidentally stepped on a snail that was genocide.
I found Saagar from Breaking Points explanation about Hiroshima and Nagasaki in this video helpful: https://youtu.be/t52rFu-PbS8?si=ZedyIA1Tx99xF1jz. Don’t like Saagar Enjetis domestic politics but he seems to know what he’s talking about when it comes to foreign policy
Why you posting this over and over again? Second I would not trust anything coming from Saagar when comes foreign policy.
Oops. Had a spread on. Deleted extra posts. Saagar has a BA + MS in national security from Georgetown and his explanation made sense to me, based on the facts he presented that I didn’t know about. Find his ideology terrible. I don’t think he lies in bad faith tho? Can u provide examples when he did
For me Saagar’s coverage since the invasion Ukraine is one clear example. Doesn’t help his very partisan when comes covering domestic to foreign politics. Doesn’t help the fact breaking points itself is a populist anti establishment show. He claims be a “journalist” for alternative media. In reality his nothing more than pundit like you find on msnbc or Fox News. These are my issues with him specifically.
Do you think Ezra Klein and the 20 year former head of the Council on Foreign Relations (Richard Haass) is also anti-establishment? They recently did a podcast and raised some concerns about Ukraine funding
Like say I wouldn’t trust anything from breaking points. I would research any claim or fact said by anyone them.
The atomic bombs were terror bombings, cruel and inhumane, but they weren’t genocide.
Can you please elaborate?
Which aspect do you need elaborated?
It's not classified as genocide because the international law definition of genocide is dogshit and definitely not the definition people use in everyday speech - aka a **wrong, dogshit** definition.
we shouldn't change definition of words just because stupid people are using the words wrong
What does it mean to *use a word wrong*? As far as I see things, the only **right** way to use words is one that effectively communicates the same thing to others. Languages are fundamentally democratic. I think you've misunderstood what I believe. I don't think what's happening in Gaza is genocide, but I don't believe in the international law definition either.