5 ms·

> to make a point for the post-war era? AFAIK, American WW2 leaders saw it as a choice between invading and dropping nukes. Is there evidence to suggest otherw

by cheriot 10y ago

> to make a point for the post-war era? AFAIK, American WW2 leaders saw it as a choice between invading and dropping nukes. Is there evidence to suggest otherwise?

Ygg2 10y ago
Same can be said of any decision.
- peteretep 10y ago
  ELI5 how the decision making behind letting the Rape of Nanking happen relates to the decision to drop the bomb.
  - Ygg2 10y ago
    It doesn't need to relate. It just needs to rationalize any action taken by some group.
  - coldtea 10y ago
    The US could not care less about the Rape of Nanking.
- berntb 10y ago
  Then please explain the rational calculations for e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre (This atrocity was part of an invasion, not a total war with an enemy that didn't follow the laws of war.) Edit: The brother comment referenced the same example while I was off for a coffee and to find a wikipedia link. :-)
coldtea 10y ago
Yes, though it's not the kind of thing one will find on sugar coated high school history or books from patriotic academics. It's common historical knowledge that the Japanese were pretty much defeated and desperate (out of oil and resources, with the Russians circling them, and they had already examined the possibility and terms of surrender, using USSR as a mediator). Of course to make it less easy, the US insisted on surrender under very humiliating terms to not let them save face, even though the US knew they were on their last legs. Besides that, there's nothing about "invading" that's worse than dropping nukes on civilians (not to mention the same "choice" can be said for any war). Except if the idea is "Better a war crime to evaporate 250.000 men, women, children, dogs and kittens, especially civilians" than to risk the lives of my men on an invasion according to standard war practice and law. Even though I know that the enemy is on its last legs anyway".
- cheriot 10y ago
  > I know that the enemy is on its last legs So they're still fighting and the war is not over yet? > there's nothing about "invading" that's worse than dropping nukes on civilians A country's leadership is responsible to its own people first. Truman dropped bombs to avoid sacrificing his people. Tojo let his people die to avoid loosing face. WW2 ended in a horrific way and the stories popular in the US definitely leave out details that make the US look bad. However your comments read like you've adopted the opposite bias rather than less bias.
  - reitanqild 10y ago
    > However your comments read like you've adopted the opposite bias rather than less bias. I'm adding this to my selection for future usage.
  - jessaustin 10y ago
    Tojo let his people die to avoid loosing [sic] face. According to TFA we should probably blame Nitobe for that as well. Frankly this seems as ridiculous to me as blaming Nietzsche for the Nazis.
  - coldtea 10y ago
    >A country's leadership is responsible to its own people first. That's the kind of thinking that leads to genocide and war crimes. >However your comments read like you've adopted the opposite bias rather than less bias. Well, not much bias. This is pretty much how big powers always operated. Read a few now US historians on WWII -- or somebody closer to Howard Zinn than some "celebrated establishment academic".
- nickik 10y ago
  Thats simply false. If you actually study the document of that time, nobody was talking about post war demonstration. You have essentially 3 ways to defeat Japan. First, invade and take the country, city by city, town by town. Second, bomb them into submission. Second, starve them into submission. Given the Japanese resilience shown in the war, they were sure that the Japanese would fight a defence to the death of their homeland. Applying scorched earth policy, and more worse things. This would have cost many American lives and a huge amount of both soldiers and civilians in Japan. The second idea had already been done so much that their was not much left to bomb. From the perspective of death, the nukes were not worse then a couple normal bombing raids. In Tokyo they had already killed more then 250'000 people just by conventional bombing. The third choice is just as cruel and would have taken a very long time (and they were already doing it anyway, they would just have to wait). The nukes, from a moral perspective, are nothing more then a step up from normal bombing. Just as fire bombing was a step up from precision bombing that they tried before. The only difference is the fallout, but that comparatively speaking is relatively weak compared to a full on war. You objection should really be to all bombing of civilians. What would be your opinion should they have done? Also, if you care about democracy, people did not give a fuck about bombing or nukes, they were all for it.
jbmorgado 10y ago
> Is there evidence to suggest otherwise? Totally. Although that's the indoctrination that the USA wants to spread, unbiased authors always point that the war was about to finish for the Japanese and if the USA didn't want to invade them China would take care of it soon anyway. Therefore, it's generally accepted outside the USA that the bombs were just a warning to a rising URSS that the USA now had the upper hand.
pipio21 10y ago
Japan is an island and needs external resources in order to survive. When the nuclear bomb was ready Japan was already under siege and nothing could get inside or outside by air or sea. Japan was already defeated consuming resources like food or oil and not replenishing them, it was only a matter of time for unconditional surrender(Japanese had already proposed "honorable surrender"). The US documents are already declassified. Nukes were launched because: 1-They were ready, and the military wanted to test it on a real target. The war was going to end before they could test it. 2-To give a clear message to URSS, specially over Europe occupation. For the military there was not a real difference between bombing a city and killing women and children, like was routine by the time, and doing it much faster and effective. Over 50 million people died at WWII. Nukes only killed a small fraction of it.

by cheriot 10y ago

> to make a point for the post-war era? AFAIK, American WW2 leaders saw it as a choice between invading and dropping nukes. Is there evidence to suggest otherwise?

Ygg2 10y ago

Same can be said of any decision.

peteretep 10y ago
ELI5 how the decision making behind letting the Rape of Nanking happen relates to the decision to drop the bomb.
- Ygg2 10y ago
  It doesn't need to relate. It just needs to rationalize any action taken by some group.
- coldtea 10y ago
  The US could not care less about the Rape of Nanking.
berntb 10y ago
Then please explain the rational calculations for e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre (This atrocity was part of an invasion, not a total war with an enemy that didn't follow the laws of war.) Edit: The brother comment referenced the same example while I was off for a coffee and to find a wikipedia link. :-)

coldtea 10y ago

Yes, though it's not the kind of thing one will find on sugar coated high school history or books from patriotic academics. It's common historical knowledge that the Japanese were pretty much defeated and desperate (out of oil and resources, with the Russians circling them, and they had already examined the possibility and terms of surrender, using USSR as a mediator). Of course to make it less easy, the US insisted on surrender under very humiliating terms to not let them save face, even though the US knew they were on their last legs. Besides that, there's nothing about "invading" that's worse than dropping nukes on civilians (not to mention the same "choice" can be said for any war). Except if the idea is "Better a war crime to evaporate 250.000 men, women, children, dogs and kittens, especially civilians" than to risk the lives of my men on an invasion according to standard war practice and law. Even though I know that the enemy is on its last legs anyway".

cheriot 10y ago
> I know that the enemy is on its last legs So they're still fighting and the war is not over yet? > there's nothing about "invading" that's worse than dropping nukes on civilians A country's leadership is responsible to its own people first. Truman dropped bombs to avoid sacrificing his people. Tojo let his people die to avoid loosing face. WW2 ended in a horrific way and the stories popular in the US definitely leave out details that make the US look bad. However your comments read like you've adopted the opposite bias rather than less bias.
- reitanqild 10y ago
  > However your comments read like you've adopted the opposite bias rather than less bias. I'm adding this to my selection for future usage.
- jessaustin 10y ago
  Tojo let his people die to avoid loosing [sic] face. According to TFA we should probably blame Nitobe for that as well. Frankly this seems as ridiculous to me as blaming Nietzsche for the Nazis.
- coldtea 10y ago
  >A country's leadership is responsible to its own people first. That's the kind of thinking that leads to genocide and war crimes. >However your comments read like you've adopted the opposite bias rather than less bias. Well, not much bias. This is pretty much how big powers always operated. Read a few now US historians on WWII -- or somebody closer to Howard Zinn than some "celebrated establishment academic".
nickik 10y ago
Thats simply false. If you actually study the document of that time, nobody was talking about post war demonstration. You have essentially 3 ways to defeat Japan. First, invade and take the country, city by city, town by town. Second, bomb them into submission. Second, starve them into submission. Given the Japanese resilience shown in the war, they were sure that the Japanese would fight a defence to the death of their homeland. Applying scorched earth policy, and more worse things. This would have cost many American lives and a huge amount of both soldiers and civilians in Japan. The second idea had already been done so much that their was not much left to bomb. From the perspective of death, the nukes were not worse then a couple normal bombing raids. In Tokyo they had already killed more then 250'000 people just by conventional bombing. The third choice is just as cruel and would have taken a very long time (and they were already doing it anyway, they would just have to wait). The nukes, from a moral perspective, are nothing more then a step up from normal bombing. Just as fire bombing was a step up from precision bombing that they tried before. The only difference is the fallout, but that comparatively speaking is relatively weak compared to a full on war. You objection should really be to all bombing of civilians. What would be your opinion should they have done? Also, if you care about democracy, people did not give a fuck about bombing or nukes, they were all for it.

jbmorgado 10y ago

> Is there evidence to suggest otherwise? Totally. Although that's the indoctrination that the USA wants to spread, unbiased authors always point that the war was about to finish for the Japanese and if the USA didn't want to invade them China would take care of it soon anyway. Therefore, it's generally accepted outside the USA that the bombs were just a warning to a rising URSS that the USA now had the upper hand.

pipio21 10y ago

Japan is an island and needs external resources in order to survive. When the nuclear bomb was ready Japan was already under siege and nothing could get inside or outside by air or sea. Japan was already defeated consuming resources like food or oil and not replenishing them, it was only a matter of time for unconditional surrender(Japanese had already proposed "honorable surrender"). The US documents are already declassified. Nukes were launched because: 1-They were ready, and the military wanted to test it on a real target. The war was going to end before they could test it. 2-To give a clear message to URSS, specially over Europe occupation. For the military there was not a real difference between bombing a city and killing women and children, like was routine by the time, and doing it much faster and effective. Over 50 million people died at WWII. Nukes only killed a small fraction of it.