4 ms·

I, like you, learned all the rationalizations that got to be written in history by the victor. The point at which most of it started to unravel for me was when

I, like you, learned all the rationalizations that got to be written in history by the victor. The point at which most of it started to unravel for me was when I learned that the United States had a whole spate of atomic bombs they were scheduling to drop if Imperial Japan didn't surrender. We think of it as two because that's all the further we got, but if things had gone a little differently it would have been six, eight, etc. A willingness to cause that kind of unprecedented basically indiscriminate devastation, well it forced me to look at the events that actually did happen through a very different lens.

scatters 6y ago
Unprecedented? The firebombing of Tokyo (and before that Dresden) witnessed similar levels of destruction and casualties.
mjevans 6y ago
These acts of destruction should be compared to the full context of the historic moment and not observed in isolation. At the time the US had been dragged in to the war by a surprise bombing that, while targeted at a military installation, was not backed by any declaration of hostilities. The ensuing battles from island to island were also brutal and from every documentary I've ever seen and every historical account I've ever read painted a very clear picture: that conventional war would not end without far higher casualties on both sides and a protracted land battle with guerilla warfare and atrocities committed by all sides. In that context an overwhelming and undeniable show of force arguably lead to less death on the obvious side, but also of those who would have been consumed on the side that surrendered as well. Consideration of the 'lessons learned' from (then, possibly either, 'the great war' or WWI) also required the consideration of recovery after the war. My supposition is that for Japan the outcome is probably within the best likely range of variations. Cultural identity intact; culture nudged towards an easy, slow, movement towards global integration, tolerance and equality; a post-war rebuilding effort to ensure that recovery would stick and general prosperity would persist. We should be so lucky to reflect upon the post-war lessons and once again apply them within as a New-New Deal. I hope that is how we apply the lessons of recovering from the world wars to recovering from the current 'war' on the pandemic (and all of the forces that cause it to be as bad as it has been; most domestic).
- kubanczyk 6y ago
  What? Pearl Harbor? Morally, the entire bombing campaign against Japanese cities, including both conventional and nuclear bombing, was justified by deliberate extermination of Chinese civilian population (estimated 2.7 million civilian deaths in North China for years 1940-1942). > In a study published in 1996, historian Mitsuyoshi Himeta claims that the Three Alls Policy, sanctioned by Emperor Hirohito himself, was both directly and indirectly responsible for the deaths of "more than 2.7 million" Chinese civilians. Sankō Sakusen: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Alls_Policy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Alls_Policy (That "justification" doesn't look valid in my eyes, don't take me wrong. Eye for an eye, civilian for a civilian?...) Alas, it certainly looks like US had already decided that they indiscriminately target Japanese civilians long before they had nuclear weapons. The single most devastating conventional raid on Tokyo on 10 March 1945 claimed 90-100 thousand deaths (it's slightly more than Hiroshima).
- Multicomp 6y ago
  I agree with you. I do wish historical context was not so easily lost from the public consciousness, but I don't have a solution for it. I can't find it now, but there was an audible audiobook that I used to have back in the dvd-audio days that showed just how much effort the Japanese government took to even be able to accept surrender when their militaries were extremely hawkish even to the end. It briefly touched on US discussions as well but was primarily focused on the Japanese government. The Emperor of Japan himself had to do a certain amount of conspiring in order to be able to both surrender and not lose face. Even though he was in theory the supreme ruler, apparently if not done correctly there was risk of that military officers would go rogue.
mardifoufs 6y ago
That's a pretty absurd take. I mean, of course the bombing wouldn't have stopped if there was no surrender...considering that was the whole point of using nuclear bombs in the first place. I can't understand how 2 nuclear bombs can be considered to be worse than the millions of deaths a land invasion of Japan would have led to. I absolutely understand why the Americans weren't willing to risk a conventional land war in Japan, considering the insanely bitter Japanese resistance in Okinawa. Everything indicated that Japan and it's civilian population was willing to fight off an invasion at all costs, through the bitter end. The Americans witnessed that absolute suicidal fanaticism in every single battle they've had with the Japanese whether they were military or civilians. What's actually "rationalization" is to pretend the Americans didn't try everything to convince the Japanese to capitulate or to push for the disproven theory that Japan was about to surrender anyways. I get that it's hard for some to acknowledge that the US has ever done anything good, but there are already tons of valid reasons to dislike America. This absolutely isn't one of them. Btw in ww2, history seems to have been written mostly by the losers who pushed for the omnipresent "underdog" narratives that are usually nothing more than outright historical revisionism . The Japanese white washing of their ww2 history or the german generals post war memoirs that started numerous myths about the Werhmacht are proof of that. Ironically, one of those narratives is the tired maxim that history is supposedly written by the winners, which is a pretty convenient way for the losers to make their revisionism more compelling.
- brabel 6y ago
  > I can't understand how 2 nuclear bombs can be considered to be worse than the millions of deaths a land invasion of Japan would have led to. You should definitely try to understand that. Perhaps if the bombs had been targeted at LA or NY by Germans (who would certainly be as correct as you are that doing that would've saved millions of lives in a potential invasion of the USA by Germany once it was done in Europe) it would be easier for you to understand that the potential for a future, prolongued military battle in no way can be used as a justification for immediately killing hundreds of thousands of civillians.
  - mardifoufs 6y ago
throwaway0a5e 6y ago
>A willingness to cause that kind of unprecedented basically indiscriminate devastation, well it forced me to look at the events that actually did happen through a very different lens. I think you need to spend some quality time going over pictures and statistics from cities like Volgograd and Berlin. The destruction was by no means unprecedented and the death toll among the locals was on the same order as what you'd expect from fighting over the city. The low cost to the attackers was what was unprecedented.

scatters 6y ago

Unprecedented? The firebombing of Tokyo (and before that Dresden) witnessed similar levels of destruction and casualties.

mjevans 6y ago

These acts of destruction should be compared to the full context of the historic moment and not observed in isolation. At the time the US had been dragged in to the war by a surprise bombing that, while targeted at a military installation, was not backed by any declaration of hostilities. The ensuing battles from island to island were also brutal and from every documentary I've ever seen and every historical account I've ever read painted a very clear picture: that conventional war would not end without far higher casualties on both sides and a protracted land battle with guerilla warfare and atrocities committed by all sides. In that context an overwhelming and undeniable show of force arguably lead to less death on the obvious side, but also of those who would have been consumed on the side that surrendered as well. Consideration of the 'lessons learned' from (then, possibly either, 'the great war' or WWI) also required the consideration of recovery after the war. My supposition is that for Japan the outcome is probably within the best likely range of variations. Cultural identity intact; culture nudged towards an easy, slow, movement towards global integration, tolerance and equality; a post-war rebuilding effort to ensure that recovery would stick and general prosperity would persist. We should be so lucky to reflect upon the post-war lessons and once again apply them within as a New-New Deal. I hope that is how we apply the lessons of recovering from the world wars to recovering from the current 'war' on the pandemic (and all of the forces that cause it to be as bad as it has been; most domestic).

kubanczyk 6y ago
What? Pearl Harbor? Morally, the entire bombing campaign against Japanese cities, including both conventional and nuclear bombing, was justified by deliberate extermination of Chinese civilian population (estimated 2.7 million civilian deaths in North China for years 1940-1942). > In a study published in 1996, historian Mitsuyoshi Himeta claims that the Three Alls Policy, sanctioned by Emperor Hirohito himself, was both directly and indirectly responsible for the deaths of "more than 2.7 million" Chinese civilians. Sankō Sakusen: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Alls_Policy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Alls_Policy (That "justification" doesn't look valid in my eyes, don't take me wrong. Eye for an eye, civilian for a civilian?...) Alas, it certainly looks like US had already decided that they indiscriminately target Japanese civilians long before they had nuclear weapons. The single most devastating conventional raid on Tokyo on 10 March 1945 claimed 90-100 thousand deaths (it's slightly more than Hiroshima).
Multicomp 6y ago
I agree with you. I do wish historical context was not so easily lost from the public consciousness, but I don't have a solution for it. I can't find it now, but there was an audible audiobook that I used to have back in the dvd-audio days that showed just how much effort the Japanese government took to even be able to accept surrender when their militaries were extremely hawkish even to the end. It briefly touched on US discussions as well but was primarily focused on the Japanese government. The Emperor of Japan himself had to do a certain amount of conspiring in order to be able to both surrender and not lose face. Even though he was in theory the supreme ruler, apparently if not done correctly there was risk of that military officers would go rogue.

mardifoufs 6y ago

That's a pretty absurd take. I mean, of course the bombing wouldn't have stopped if there was no surrender...considering that was the whole point of using nuclear bombs in the first place. I can't understand how 2 nuclear bombs can be considered to be worse than the millions of deaths a land invasion of Japan would have led to. I absolutely understand why the Americans weren't willing to risk a conventional land war in Japan, considering the insanely bitter Japanese resistance in Okinawa. Everything indicated that Japan and it's civilian population was willing to fight off an invasion at all costs, through the bitter end. The Americans witnessed that absolute suicidal fanaticism in every single battle they've had with the Japanese whether they were military or civilians. What's actually "rationalization" is to pretend the Americans didn't try everything to convince the Japanese to capitulate or to push for the disproven theory that Japan was about to surrender anyways. I get that it's hard for some to acknowledge that the US has ever done anything good, but there are already tons of valid reasons to dislike America. This absolutely isn't one of them. Btw in ww2, history seems to have been written mostly by the losers who pushed for the omnipresent "underdog" narratives that are usually nothing more than outright historical revisionism . The Japanese white washing of their ww2 history or the german generals post war memoirs that started numerous myths about the Werhmacht are proof of that. Ironically, one of those narratives is the tired maxim that history is supposedly written by the winners, which is a pretty convenient way for the losers to make their revisionism more compelling.

brabel 6y ago
> I can't understand how 2 nuclear bombs can be considered to be worse than the millions of deaths a land invasion of Japan would have led to. You should definitely try to understand that. Perhaps if the bombs had been targeted at LA or NY by Germans (who would certainly be as correct as you are that doing that would've saved millions of lives in a potential invasion of the USA by Germany once it was done in Europe) it would be easier for you to understand that the potential for a future, prolongued military battle in no way can be used as a justification for immediately killing hundreds of thousands of civillians.
- mardifoufs 6y ago

throwaway0a5e 6y ago

>A willingness to cause that kind of unprecedented basically indiscriminate devastation, well it forced me to look at the events that actually did happen through a very different lens. I think you need to spend some quality time going over pictures and statistics from cities like Volgograd and Berlin. The destruction was by no means unprecedented and the death toll among the locals was on the same order as what you'd expect from fighting over the city. The low cost to the attackers was what was unprecedented.