8 ms·

It isn't debatable because we know hiroshima and nagasaki had no bearing on the japanese decision to surrender. If the nukes were the cause of japan's surrender

It isn't debatable because we know hiroshima and nagasaki had no bearing on the japanese decision to surrender. If the nukes were the cause of japan's surrender, hiroshima would have been enough and nagasaki wouldn't have happened. Also, there is no ambiguity to the morality of hiroshima or nagasaki. No more than there is any ambiguity to the morality of nazi death camps. They were both racially driven war crimes and crimes against humanity. And as mcnamara said, if we had lost the war, our leaders would have been executed for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

skadamou 8y ago
>...we know hiroshima and nagasaki had no bearing on the japanese decision to surrender. I think this is an interesting idea but I would love to see a source on this. When I took a Japan at War class in college our professor seemed to be of the opinion that using the atom bomb was what finally convinced the Japanese to surrender unconditionally but that they would have agreed to a conditional surrender as long as their emperor was guaranteed some form of independence. What are your thoughts on this?
- avn2109 8y ago
  I'm not the parent but I wrote a comment about this elsewhere in the thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19115219 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19115219 and another similar comment previously https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10485563 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10485563
- deogeo 8y ago
  avn2109 gave some sources in another comment - let me add one more: https://mises.org/wire/atomic-bombing-japan-reconsidered https://mises.org/wire/atomic-bombing-japan-reconsidered
- jpfr 8y ago
  That is the justification for the bomb for the American public. Many Japanese cities (sixty-ish) were destroyed by traditional firebombing. For the Japanese, Hiroshima and Nagasaki simply meant "two more cities". Two days after Hiroshima, Russia declared war against Japan. So their strategic position in the war became hopeless. Historians believe Russia entering the war shaped the surrender much more than the atomic bomb. https://nationalpost.com/news/did-the-atomic-bombings-of-hiroshima-and-nagasaki-really-end-the-war https://nationalpost.com/news/did-the-atomic-bombings-of-hir...
  - gandhium 8y ago
    > Historians believe Let me guess - Russian historians? Since the link you've pasted wasn't from historian.
skh 8y ago
It’s debatable because we just don’t know when the surrender would have taken place in the absense of the bombings. We can look at statements by leaders on what they would have done under the hypothetical of them not occurring but we still wouldn’t know what would have happened if they didn’t occur. Perhaps one nuke was not enough to induce surrender. When the second occurs maybe it’s enough to induce. Maybe they were arguing amongst themselves on how to surrender with honor or some other nitpick but then the nukes quickly ended any internal discussions. Post facto the leaders can say this or that but we’ll never really know what they would have done if bombings didn’t occur. There is moral ambiguity on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. For one, you view the actions with the benefit of hindsight and with the moral views of a different era. So in your mind you can say they were definitely moral crimes but you can’t objectively demonstrate this in the sense of convincing most people that you are right. Was the bombing of Dresden racially motivated? I’ve never thought it so. There were certain racial views against the Japanese but that doesn’t make the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima racially motivated. Was the Tokyo fire raid racially motivated? What about the invasions of Okinawa and Iwo Jima? We could have blockaded Japan and possibly forced their surrender. Of course that wouldn’t have stopped the 2 million or so Japanese soldiers in China from doing their fighting. Yes, McNamara said that. Was he right? I don’t think so. The Germans and the Japanese had no need for trials of conquered leaders. They just killed them. It’s interesting to think about the what ifs and claim this action was unnecessary or that action was morally criminal. We’ll disagree on the efficacy of the nuclear attacks. My previous post was mostly to point out that the bombings weren’t meant to serve tactical military considerations. That the bombings were political and hence it’s perfectly reasonable that the military leaders would consider them militarily useless even if they weren’t useless in the broader political context. Military leaders don’t always get it right. McArthur famously wanted to nuke China like 50 times during the Korean War.
- SiempreViernes 8y ago
  I find the notion that morality can be objectively demonstrated by convincing a majority that your viewpoint is correct very interesting notion... In any case, I also think the charge of racism is a bit uncalled for, the complete disregard for human suffering exemplified by the firebombing campaigns are surely enough to qualify as very serious war crimes all on their own. (Though to claim that an America that was interning all its japan connected citizens in camps was acting without any racial impulses do seem rather implausible)
Mvandenbergh 8y ago
"we know hiroshima and nagasaki had no bearing on the japanese decision to surrender." That may well be the case but it is not remotely clear that the people making that decision knew it for a fact which is what actually has bearing on the morality. Also - why focus so much on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? The bombing of Tokyo, Dresden, Hamburg, London, Coventry, etc. were all attacks on civilians. We tend to judge atomic bombing as being special because of the thermonuclear age that followed but if it wasn't for that, we'd think of them as "strategic" bombing of population centres exactly the same as all the other such bombing done by all sides in WW2.
- dboreham 8y ago
  >The bombing of Tokyo, Dresden, Hamburg, London, Coventry, etc. were all attacks on civilians. And at the time it appears the military leaders saw the atomic bomb as primary an optimization measure for carrying out this kind of city-wide attack. (See : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fog_of_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fog_of_War)
  - theptip 8y ago
    It's worth mentioning that more civilians died in the firebombing of Tokyo than in either of Hiroshima or Nagasaki (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo). That was a conventional bombing raid (essentially covering the city in napalm). However the psychological impact of the nuclear attacks being a single bomb is important to consider as well.
- porpoisely 8y ago
  Just because I focused on hiroshima and nagasaki doesn't mean I don't think the firebombings were any better. They were war crimes and crimes against humanity also.
AnimalMuppet 8y ago
After Hiroshima and the Russian invasion of Manchuria, but before Nagasaki, the Japanese army was preparing to impose martial law on Japan to prevent anyone from surrendering. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan#August_9:_Soviet_invasion_and_Nagasaki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan#August_9:_S... After Hiroshima, the Russian invasion of Manchuria, and Nagasaki, Japan still went through an attempted coup to try to prevent the surrender. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan#Attempted_military_coup_d'%C3%A9tat_(August_12%E2%80%9315) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan#Attempted_m... I think it's totally false to say "hiroshima and nagasaki had no bearing on the japanese decision to surrender". That doesn't match the evidence of history whatsoever.
- boomboomsubban 8y ago
  You're treating acts committed by a handful of officers as done by the entire army or nation. Neither act means that the bombs had a bearing on the decision.
  - krapp 8y ago
    We're not talking about a democracy, though. This handful of officers and the emperor were the decision makers.
    - boomboomsubban 8y ago
      A handful of officers made decisions, not this particular one. Preparation for martial law had the backing of one member of the six man Supreme War Council, while the coup never had anyone above the rank of major or lieutenant colonel onboard. >We're not talking about a democracy, though. Like the democratic decision to drop the bomb? This is a silly statement, everybody involved had most of the power consolidated into a few hands.
opo 8y ago
The atomic bomb was the only reason given by the Emperor for the surrender in his address to the nation. Even after 2 atomic bombs were dropped there was an attempted military coup to prevent the Emperor from surrendering. >...They were both racially driven war crimes and crimes against humanity. Why do you say they were racially driven? The same types of civilian bombing was done in Germany as was done in Japan. If we had the atomic bomb before the war ended in Germany, I am sure it would have been used there.
- theoh 8y ago
  There are serious debates about these issues. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombing... Your stated confidence that there was no difference in the way Germany and Japan were viewed in terms of racial difference from the US—come on, how is that supposed to demonstrate anything other than a personal desire to prove that racially-tinged animosity wasn't a factor? Protip: don't expect a historically sophisticated, humane, balanced historical account to emerge from HN comments.
  - opo 8y ago
    >...There are serious debates about these issues. Of course there is debate - I never said their wasn't. It was the original poster who wrote: >>..It isn't debatable because we know hiroshima and nagasaki had no bearing on the japanese decision to surrender. >…Your stated confidence that there was no difference in the way Germany and Japan were viewed in terms of racial difference from the US—come on, how is that supposed to demonstrate anything other than a personal desire to prove that racially-tinged animosity wasn't a factor? Don't misrepresent what I wrote. I never said "there was no difference in the way Germany and Japan were viewed in terms of racial difference from the US". The original poster wrote: >>…They were both racially driven war crimes and crimes against humanity. If someone makes extraordinary claims, they need to provide some evidence. Maybe there is some proof of this, so in my reply I asked for some evidence. I also pointed out that the same types of bombing was done in Germany and if the bomb had been available earlier I ams sure it would have been used there also. I wrote: >…Why do you say they were racially driven? The same types of civilian bombing was done in Germany as was done in Japan. If we had the atomic bomb before the war ended in Germany, I am sure it would have been used there. To clarify what I said about the same types of bombing done to cities in Germany, there is this account by the physicist Freeman Dyson who was a civilian scientist working for the Operational Research Section of RAF Bomber Command headquarters: >…We killed altogether about 400,000 Germans,* one third of them in the two fire storms in Hamburg and Dresden. The Dresden fire storm was the worst. But from our point of view it was only a fluke. We attacked Berlin sixteen times with the same kind of force that attacked Dresden once. We were trying every time to raise a fire storm. There was nothing special about Dresden except that for once everything worked as we intended. http://www.bible-researcher.com/dresden/dyson.html http://www.bible-researcher.com/dresden/dyson.html Roosevelt wanted to use the bomb on Germany if it could be made available. before the war in Europe was over. I've never seen any suggestions that any of the Roosevelt administration (or any of the allies) proposed the atomic bomb not be used over Germany because of their race. If someone wants to claim that the use of the atomic bomb in Japan was "racially driven", it is entirely fair to ask for some evidence. >Protip: don't expect a historically sophisticated, humane, balanced historical account to emerge from HN comments. I agree.
dsq 8y ago
"..the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb...should we continue to fight, it would not only result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization...This is the reason why We have ordered the acceptance of the provisions of the Joint Declaration of the Power". - Imperial Rescript on Surrender, by the Showa Emperor (Hirohito).
- 420codebro 8y ago
  Total extinction of human civilization? I disagree. Total extinction of Japanese civilization. Absolutely.
- int_19h 8y ago
  A superweapon is a convenient thing to blame one's surrender on. But if you look at the discussions the Japanese war cabinet had behind the scenes these days, it's clear that they were worried about an imminent Soviet invasion just as much as the bombs.
  - krapp 8y ago
    > But if you look at the discussions the Japanese war cabinet had behind the scenes these days, it's clear that they were worried about an imminent Soviet invasion just as much as the bombs. Can you post a source for these? Google hasn't been any help. English translations, obviously, would be preferred.
    - int_19h 8y ago
      Wikipedia has a lengthy article on various debates and controversies on this broad subject (whether the bombs were justified or not), including Soviet role in it, and whether it made the second bomb unnecessary. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Nagasaki_bombing_unnecessary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombing...
      - 8y ago
leftyted 8y ago
> It isn't debatable because we know hiroshima and nagasaki had no bearing on the japanese decision to surrender. Not only is this debatable but it is often debated. Your post is absurd. In your mind the Holocaust is morally equivalent to the nuclear bombings of Japan. That's crazy: Japan and the US were engaged in a war (that Japan started) whereas the Jews (and other victims of the Nazis) were not at war with Germany. If you want a more nuanced perspective on the bombings and the surrender of Japan, read Downfall by Richard B. Frank. Even if you disagree with Frank, acting like there's no debate on this subject is dishonest. There's plenty of debate. In my opinion, people who talk about issues like this in absolute terms are unwilling or unable to grapple with the complexity that necessarily exists in wartime.
remarkEon 8y ago
This isn't a serious comment, and is a gross misrepresentation of WWII history. It's deeply concerning to me that WWII history is being rewritten as just another example of the evil United State Empire being racist again (you're not the only one who thinks this wrongly about WWII). We're probably less than a decade away from revisionist history bleeding over into 9/11, and people will actively teach my children that the United States deserved it as some kind of cosmic karma.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
CamperBob2 8y ago
I don't know about you, but I think I would run up the white flag after being nuked once.
- Tsubasachan 8y ago
  The Japanese should have surrendered in 1943 AND THEY KNEW IT. Its easy to blame the evil Americans for nuking Hiroshima. Nobody ever talks about the Japanese government dragging out a losing war. The Japanese public themselves knew it though. Its why even today the military is disliked. All of Japan was supposed to go down in a blaze of glory- luckily the emperor regained his senses at the eleventh hour.

skadamou 8y ago

>...we know hiroshima and nagasaki had no bearing on the japanese decision to surrender. I think this is an interesting idea but I would love to see a source on this. When I took a Japan at War class in college our professor seemed to be of the opinion that using the atom bomb was what finally convinced the Japanese to surrender unconditionally but that they would have agreed to a conditional surrender as long as their emperor was guaranteed some form of independence. What are your thoughts on this?

avn2109 8y ago
I'm not the parent but I wrote a comment about this elsewhere in the thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19115219 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19115219 and another similar comment previously https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10485563 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10485563
deogeo 8y ago
avn2109 gave some sources in another comment - let me add one more: https://mises.org/wire/atomic-bombing-japan-reconsidered https://mises.org/wire/atomic-bombing-japan-reconsidered
jpfr 8y ago
That is the justification for the bomb for the American public. Many Japanese cities (sixty-ish) were destroyed by traditional firebombing. For the Japanese, Hiroshima and Nagasaki simply meant "two more cities". Two days after Hiroshima, Russia declared war against Japan. So their strategic position in the war became hopeless. Historians believe Russia entering the war shaped the surrender much more than the atomic bomb. https://nationalpost.com/news/did-the-atomic-bombings-of-hiroshima-and-nagasaki-really-end-the-war https://nationalpost.com/news/did-the-atomic-bombings-of-hir...
- gandhium 8y ago
  > Historians believe Let me guess - Russian historians? Since the link you've pasted wasn't from historian.

skh 8y ago

It’s debatable because we just don’t know when the surrender would have taken place in the absense of the bombings. We can look at statements by leaders on what they would have done under the hypothetical of them not occurring but we still wouldn’t know what would have happened if they didn’t occur. Perhaps one nuke was not enough to induce surrender. When the second occurs maybe it’s enough to induce. Maybe they were arguing amongst themselves on how to surrender with honor or some other nitpick but then the nukes quickly ended any internal discussions. Post facto the leaders can say this or that but we’ll never really know what they would have done if bombings didn’t occur. There is moral ambiguity on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. For one, you view the actions with the benefit of hindsight and with the moral views of a different era. So in your mind you can say they were definitely moral crimes but you can’t objectively demonstrate this in the sense of convincing most people that you are right. Was the bombing of Dresden racially motivated? I’ve never thought it so. There were certain racial views against the Japanese but that doesn’t make the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima racially motivated. Was the Tokyo fire raid racially motivated? What about the invasions of Okinawa and Iwo Jima? We could have blockaded Japan and possibly forced their surrender. Of course that wouldn’t have stopped the 2 million or so Japanese soldiers in China from doing their fighting. Yes, McNamara said that. Was he right? I don’t think so. The Germans and the Japanese had no need for trials of conquered leaders. They just killed them. It’s interesting to think about the what ifs and claim this action was unnecessary or that action was morally criminal. We’ll disagree on the efficacy of the nuclear attacks. My previous post was mostly to point out that the bombings weren’t meant to serve tactical military considerations. That the bombings were political and hence it’s perfectly reasonable that the military leaders would consider them militarily useless even if they weren’t useless in the broader political context. Military leaders don’t always get it right. McArthur famously wanted to nuke China like 50 times during the Korean War.

SiempreViernes 8y ago
I find the notion that morality can be objectively demonstrated by convincing a majority that your viewpoint is correct very interesting notion... In any case, I also think the charge of racism is a bit uncalled for, the complete disregard for human suffering exemplified by the firebombing campaigns are surely enough to qualify as very serious war crimes all on their own. (Though to claim that an America that was interning all its japan connected citizens in camps was acting without any racial impulses do seem rather implausible)

Mvandenbergh 8y ago

"we know hiroshima and nagasaki had no bearing on the japanese decision to surrender." That may well be the case but it is not remotely clear that the people making that decision knew it for a fact which is what actually has bearing on the morality. Also - why focus so much on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? The bombing of Tokyo, Dresden, Hamburg, London, Coventry, etc. were all attacks on civilians. We tend to judge atomic bombing as being special because of the thermonuclear age that followed but if it wasn't for that, we'd think of them as "strategic" bombing of population centres exactly the same as all the other such bombing done by all sides in WW2.

dboreham 8y ago
>The bombing of Tokyo, Dresden, Hamburg, London, Coventry, etc. were all attacks on civilians. And at the time it appears the military leaders saw the atomic bomb as primary an optimization measure for carrying out this kind of city-wide attack. (See : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fog_of_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fog_of_War)
- theptip 8y ago
  It's worth mentioning that more civilians died in the firebombing of Tokyo than in either of Hiroshima or Nagasaki (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo). That was a conventional bombing raid (essentially covering the city in napalm). However the psychological impact of the nuclear attacks being a single bomb is important to consider as well.
porpoisely 8y ago
Just because I focused on hiroshima and nagasaki doesn't mean I don't think the firebombings were any better. They were war crimes and crimes against humanity also.

AnimalMuppet 8y ago

After Hiroshima and the Russian invasion of Manchuria, but before Nagasaki, the Japanese army was preparing to impose martial law on Japan to prevent anyone from surrendering. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan#August_9:_Soviet_invasion_and_Nagasaki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan#August_9:_S... After Hiroshima, the Russian invasion of Manchuria, and Nagasaki, Japan still went through an attempted coup to try to prevent the surrender. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan#Attempted_military_coup_d'%C3%A9tat_(August_12%E2%80%9315) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan#Attempted_m... I think it's totally false to say "hiroshima and nagasaki had no bearing on the japanese decision to surrender". That doesn't match the evidence of history whatsoever.

boomboomsubban 8y ago
You're treating acts committed by a handful of officers as done by the entire army or nation. Neither act means that the bombs had a bearing on the decision.
- krapp 8y ago
  We're not talking about a democracy, though. This handful of officers and the emperor were the decision makers.
  - boomboomsubban 8y ago
    A handful of officers made decisions, not this particular one. Preparation for martial law had the backing of one member of the six man Supreme War Council, while the coup never had anyone above the rank of major or lieutenant colonel onboard. >We're not talking about a democracy, though. Like the democratic decision to drop the bomb? This is a silly statement, everybody involved had most of the power consolidated into a few hands.

opo 8y ago

The atomic bomb was the only reason given by the Emperor for the surrender in his address to the nation. Even after 2 atomic bombs were dropped there was an attempted military coup to prevent the Emperor from surrendering. >...They were both racially driven war crimes and crimes against humanity. Why do you say they were racially driven? The same types of civilian bombing was done in Germany as was done in Japan. If we had the atomic bomb before the war ended in Germany, I am sure it would have been used there.

theoh 8y ago
There are serious debates about these issues. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombing... Your stated confidence that there was no difference in the way Germany and Japan were viewed in terms of racial difference from the US—come on, how is that supposed to demonstrate anything other than a personal desire to prove that racially-tinged animosity wasn't a factor? Protip: don't expect a historically sophisticated, humane, balanced historical account to emerge from HN comments.
- opo 8y ago
  >...There are serious debates about these issues. Of course there is debate - I never said their wasn't. It was the original poster who wrote: >>..It isn't debatable because we know hiroshima and nagasaki had no bearing on the japanese decision to surrender. >…Your stated confidence that there was no difference in the way Germany and Japan were viewed in terms of racial difference from the US—come on, how is that supposed to demonstrate anything other than a personal desire to prove that racially-tinged animosity wasn't a factor? Don't misrepresent what I wrote. I never said "there was no difference in the way Germany and Japan were viewed in terms of racial difference from the US". The original poster wrote: >>…They were both racially driven war crimes and crimes against humanity. If someone makes extraordinary claims, they need to provide some evidence. Maybe there is some proof of this, so in my reply I asked for some evidence. I also pointed out that the same types of bombing was done in Germany and if the bomb had been available earlier I ams sure it would have been used there also. I wrote: >…Why do you say they were racially driven? The same types of civilian bombing was done in Germany as was done in Japan. If we had the atomic bomb before the war ended in Germany, I am sure it would have been used there. To clarify what I said about the same types of bombing done to cities in Germany, there is this account by the physicist Freeman Dyson who was a civilian scientist working for the Operational Research Section of RAF Bomber Command headquarters: >…We killed altogether about 400,000 Germans,* one third of them in the two fire storms in Hamburg and Dresden. The Dresden fire storm was the worst. But from our point of view it was only a fluke. We attacked Berlin sixteen times with the same kind of force that attacked Dresden once. We were trying every time to raise a fire storm. There was nothing special about Dresden except that for once everything worked as we intended. http://www.bible-researcher.com/dresden/dyson.html http://www.bible-researcher.com/dresden/dyson.html Roosevelt wanted to use the bomb on Germany if it could be made available. before the war in Europe was over. I've never seen any suggestions that any of the Roosevelt administration (or any of the allies) proposed the atomic bomb not be used over Germany because of their race. If someone wants to claim that the use of the atomic bomb in Japan was "racially driven", it is entirely fair to ask for some evidence. >Protip: don't expect a historically sophisticated, humane, balanced historical account to emerge from HN comments. I agree.

dsq 8y ago

"..the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb...should we continue to fight, it would not only result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization...This is the reason why We have ordered the acceptance of the provisions of the Joint Declaration of the Power". - Imperial Rescript on Surrender, by the Showa Emperor (Hirohito).

420codebro 8y ago
Total extinction of human civilization? I disagree. Total extinction of Japanese civilization. Absolutely.
int_19h 8y ago
A superweapon is a convenient thing to blame one's surrender on. But if you look at the discussions the Japanese war cabinet had behind the scenes these days, it's clear that they were worried about an imminent Soviet invasion just as much as the bombs.
- krapp 8y ago
  > But if you look at the discussions the Japanese war cabinet had behind the scenes these days, it's clear that they were worried about an imminent Soviet invasion just as much as the bombs. Can you post a source for these? Google hasn't been any help. English translations, obviously, would be preferred.
  - int_19h 8y ago
    Wikipedia has a lengthy article on various debates and controversies on this broad subject (whether the bombs were justified or not), including Soviet role in it, and whether it made the second bomb unnecessary. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Nagasaki_bombing_unnecessary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombing...
    - 8y ago

leftyted 8y ago

> It isn't debatable because we know hiroshima and nagasaki had no bearing on the japanese decision to surrender. Not only is this debatable but it is often debated. Your post is absurd. In your mind the Holocaust is morally equivalent to the nuclear bombings of Japan. That's crazy: Japan and the US were engaged in a war (that Japan started) whereas the Jews (and other victims of the Nazis) were not at war with Germany. If you want a more nuanced perspective on the bombings and the surrender of Japan, read Downfall by Richard B. Frank. Even if you disagree with Frank, acting like there's no debate on this subject is dishonest. There's plenty of debate. In my opinion, people who talk about issues like this in absolute terms are unwilling or unable to grapple with the complexity that necessarily exists in wartime.

remarkEon 8y ago

This isn't a serious comment, and is a gross misrepresentation of WWII history. It's deeply concerning to me that WWII history is being rewritten as just another example of the evil United State Empire being racist again (you're not the only one who thinks this wrongly about WWII). We're probably less than a decade away from revisionist history bleeding over into 9/11, and people will actively teach my children that the United States deserved it as some kind of cosmic karma.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

CamperBob2 8y ago

I don't know about you, but I think I would run up the white flag after being nuked once.

Tsubasachan 8y ago
The Japanese should have surrendered in 1943 AND THEY KNEW IT. Its easy to blame the evil Americans for nuking Hiroshima. Nobody ever talks about the Japanese government dragging out a losing war. The Japanese public themselves knew it though. Its why even today the military is disliked. All of Japan was supposed to go down in a blaze of glory- luckily the emperor regained his senses at the eleventh hour.