3 ms·
Given an average of 100,000 [EDIT 100,000 per month since 1937] civilian deaths at the hands of the imperial army just in China alone (there were civilians bein
by merpnderp 11y ago
Given an average of 100,000 [EDIT 100,000 per month since 1937] civilian deaths at the hands of the imperial army just in China alone (there were civilians being slaughtered in Indo-china and the Korean peninsula also), if the bombs ended the war just two months earlier than it would have ended (incredibly unlikely to the point of absurdity), it was a net gain in civilians saved.
And it can be well argued that the Japanese civilian deaths should be blamed on the imperial army for not capitulating when it was obvious the war was lost.
- termain 11y ago100,000 per... month I'm guessing?
- merpnderp 11y agoYikes, thanks. Yes it averages out to about 100,000 per month since the start of the mainland invasion in 1937.
- derrickdirge 11y agoPutting personal/national pride ahead of the health and safety of your citizens is certainly immoral.
- hga 11y agoThe estimate for the overall deaths in the Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere were 250,000 per month, we'd only liberated the Philippines from it. Korea, which had been under their boot for half a century, Malaya as it was called back then, the populous Dutch East Indies, now Indonesia, South East Asia, they had captured a lot of territory and people, all of whom they viewed as untermenschen.
- prof_hobart 11y agoThat's an entirely valid point in relation to WWII (although as I'm sure I've seen research suggesting that Japan was already trying to mediate a peace, and that the US were aware of this, before the bomb was dropped so it may not be as clear cut as those figures suggest). However, my point was that even if it is true for WWII, it doesn't make it automatically true for any war as the quote seemed to be suggesting. The quickest way to finish a war isn't always the best.