HIST 102: U.S. History Since 1877 · Chapter 26, Lecture 3 of 3 · Richland Community College
Name:
How to Use This Study Guide
Find the deck in your Canvas module. Click popup terms (dotted underlines) and press S for speaker notes.
Fill in your own words after reviewing the deck. Write full definitions — not copied from the slides.
Can I use this on the exam? Yes — but only if handwritten. No printouts, no copy-paste from Google or AI.
In August 1945, the United States dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing approximately 210,000 people by year's end — the culmination of a firebombing campaign that had already destroyed 67 Japanese cities. In the months that followed, the Allied powers attempted something unprecedented: rather than summarily executing the defeated leadership of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, they convened international tribunals at Nuremberg and Tokyo to establish legal accountability for aggression, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. These trials produced genuine legal achievements that shaped international law for the next seventy-five years. They also protected some of the most consequential perpetrators — including Emperor Hirohito, the Unit 731 biological warfare scientists, and over 1,600 Nazi rocket engineers and scientists recruited under Operation Paperclip — whenever Cold War strategic calculation made accountability inconvenient. This lecture asks the central question: can justice ever be achieved after total war, or does power inevitably determine who is held accountable?
Complete each statement using the lecture deck. Bold terms appear in Part II.
Review the deck and popup definitions, then write your own explanation. Aim for full sentences, not bullet fragments.
| Term | Definition & Significance |
|---|---|
| Operation Meetinghouse Section I — The Atomic Bomb | After — deck + popups: March 1945 Tokyo firebombing; killed more than Hiroshima in one night |
| Operation Downfall Section I — The Atomic Bomb | After — deck + popups: Planned invasion of Japan; projected up to one million Allied casualties |
| Leo Szilard's Petition Section I — The Atomic Bomb | After — deck + popups: 69 scientists urged no use on cities without warning; suppressed by Groves |
| The Alperovitz Thesis Section I — The Atomic Bomb | After — deck + popups: Argument that bombs were dropped primarily to signal the Soviet Union, not end the war |
| Crimes Against Humanity Section II — Nuremberg | After — deck + popups: New legal category at Nuremberg; captured what states do to their own citizens |
| Stimson & Jackson Section II — Nuremberg | After — deck + popups: Architects of Nuremberg; argued for trial over summary execution to create legal record |
| The "Following Orders" Precedent Section II — Nuremberg | After — deck + popups: Nuremberg established obedience to orders is no defense against crimes against humanity |
| The Shielding of Hirohito Section III — Tokyo Tribunal | After — deck + popups: MacArthur's Cold War calculation; Bix documented Hirohito's active role in the war |
| Unit 731 Section IV — Who Escaped Justice | After — deck + popups: Japanese biological warfare unit; 3,000+ killed in experiments; granted U.S. immunity for data |
| Operation Paperclip Section IV — Who Escaped Justice | After — deck + popups: U.S. recruited 1,600+ Nazi scientists; records sanitized; von Braun became NASA director |
| Ratlines Section IV — Who Escaped Justice | After — deck + popups: Escape networks via Italy/Spain to South America; clergy, ODESSA, forged Red Cross documents |
| Yasukuni Shrine & the 1978 Enshrinement Section V — Japanese Paradox | After — deck + popups: 14 Class-A war criminals enshrined as kami (divine spirits); theologically irreversible |
| "Victors' Justice" Section VI — Limits of Postwar Justice | After — deck + popups: Critique that tribunals applied accountability selectively to the losing side only |
| The International Criminal Court (ICC) Section VI — Limits of Postwar Justice | After — deck + popups: Nuremberg's direct descendant (2002); permanent UN Security Council members exempt themselves |
These questions appeared on the lecture slides. Write a substantive response to each — full sentences, your own reasoning.
Section I — The Atomic Bomb
(Pause & Reflect)By August 1945 the United States had already firebombed 67 Japanese cities. Operation Meetinghouse killed more people in one night than the immediate deaths at Hiroshima. At what point — if any — does the atomic bomb constitute a qualitatively different moral act from the conventional bombing that preceded it? Does the scale of the weapon matter — or only the scale of the killing?
Section II — Nuremberg
(Pause & Reflect)The Soviet Union — which had invaded Poland, occupied the Baltic states, and conducted its own mass atrocities — sat as a co-equal judge at Nuremberg. Can a proceeding be politically compromised and historically legitimate at the same time? Does the presence of a guilty judge invalidate a verdict against a guilty defendant?
Section III — The Tokyo Tribunal and the Emperor Question
(Pause & Reflect)MacArthur shielded Hirohito from prosecution to stabilize Japan as a Cold War ally. Hirohito reigned for forty-four years after the war and died without ever being required to account for his role in it. Does the stability that decision produced vindicate the compromise of accountability? What was the cost — to Japanese historical memory, to Chinese and Korean victims, to the Nuremberg principle that heads of state are personally accountable?
Section IV — Who Escaped Justice — and Why
(Pause & Reflect)The United States prosecuted Nazi war criminals at Nuremberg and simultaneously recruited Nazi rocket engineers whose work was built by slave labor. It granted immunity to Unit 731 scientists for their research data. What principle governed these decisions — or is the only honest answer that power, not principle, determined who was held accountable?
Section V — The Japanese Paradox — War Criminals as Shinto Gods
(Pause & Reflect)Enshrinement at Yasukuni makes Class-A war criminals into divine spirits. Japanese prime ministers who visit argue they are honoring all war dead, not specifically the war criminals. Is it possible to honor a nation's war dead while acknowledging that the war they fought was criminal? Or does the enshrinement of war criminals make that distinction impossible to maintain?
Section VI — The Limits of Victors' Justice
(Pause & Reflect)Nuremberg tried some perpetrators while protecting others. The ICC prosecutes African leaders while the Security Council's permanent members operate outside its jurisdiction. Is partial justice better than no justice — or does it legitimize the underlying structure of impunity by providing it with a legal facade? Your answer matters — not only for 1945, but for every subsequent crisis in which the international community must decide whether to pursue accountability.
Check each box when you can do the following without looking at your notes.