3 ms·

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 t

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.

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.