4 ms·

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 nucle

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
  I'm not european or american so no, I don't have a preference for who gets nuked. Yet, there is a huge difference between Japan and Germany. The german army was acting like a "regular army", that surrendered when it was hopeless and did not have a religious desire to fight until the very end even if suicide is necessary. Germany civilians were also not prone to join the army in that bitter resistance until the end and weren't trained to fight with bamboo spears if necessary. Also, the conquest of germany wasn't planned to cause 1m american casualties and 5-10m japanese civilian and military casualties and didn't require a contested landing that would have dwarfed the one on DDay. Again, it's pure non sense to advocate that those numbers would have been better than 2 nuclear bombs because... at least it was conventional? And why can't an assessment of the potential casualties be used as a justification? Because that just sounds like grandstanding that completely ignore the reality of the war in the pacific. Not only that, but Germany was still planned to be a target if it hadn't surrendered by the time the bombs were ready. So yes, it could have happened, but only the japanese were willing go fight until the very end. They had to be shown that they would not die in a honorable resistance against the us forces, but instead will simply get nuked with no chance of fighting or retaliating.
  - kubanczyk 6y ago
    Nope. The German command didn't act normally in this respect. They were in hopeless situation since June 1944 (Operation Bagration) and continued to kill and die for nonsensical reasons. They only surrendered after Hitler killed himself.
    - mardifoufs 6y ago
      Sure, the high command was delusional or had nothing to lose, but for the most part german units surrendered in massive numbers throughout 1945 especially to the western allies. Same for germany cities, where civilians usually put up 0 resistance and were revelieved to see the war end. There is no comparison possible imo, just look at the number of japanese war prisoners vs those from germany
- 6y ago
boomboomsubban 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. >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 Those weren't the only two options. Many scientists working on the Manhattan Project submitted the Szilárd petition, urging the US to inform Japan of the terms of surrender before dropping an atomic bomb on them. The petition was ignored. They didn't even try something as basic as that. Further, the bombs destructive power could have been demonstrated without dropping one on two cities. A non-inhabited area very possibly could have worked, but a military only target was also a possibility. This isn't an example of the losers rewriting history, it's straightforward logic. The only situation I would consider launching a nuke today is retaliatory, and I don't see how being the sole owners of a nuclear bomb makes any other situation ethical.
- mardifoufs 6y ago
  I'm sorry, I'm not following. The declaration of Cairo clearly stated that the US will accept unconditional surrender. There was no need to inform Japan of that by that point, they were fully aware that the US would have accepted an unconditional surrender. There were no terms to inform the Japanese of. Keep in mind they were dropping leaflets warning the target cities' population of imminent doom for days before the bombings. And why not? If you had a weapon you knew could end the war and lead to much, much less casualties on your side why not use it? What leader would prefer the death of hundreds of thousands of his own soldiers (and millions of civilian casualties) in a total war because nuclear somehow makes it less ethical?
  - boomboomsubban 6y ago
    >The declaration of Cairo clearly stated that the US will accept unconditional surrender. There was no need to inform Japan of that by that point, they were fully aware that the US would have accepted an unconditional surrender Those aren't terms. On a simple, likely over discused level, the Japanese leaders were against the removal of the Emperor. If the US had provided terms accepting a figurehead role for him they may have been willing to discuss peace. >Keep in mind they were dropping leaflets warning the target cities' population of imminent doom for days before the bombings. Though leaflets were dropped in Japan, they did not list Hiroshima as a target and they were not dropped in Hiroshima. > If you had a weapon you knew could end the war and lead to much, much less casualties on your side why not use it? leader would prefer the death of hundreds of thousands of his own soldiers (and millions of civilian casualties) in a total war because nuclear somehow makes it less ethical? Again, those weren't the only options available. It's entirely possible their weapon could have ended the war without using it on cities.
thefounder 6y ago
Let's see if the history turns around and another state(i.e China) saves millions of lives in a potential invasion of the USA
- mardifoufs 6y ago
  Yes, and they both would nuke each other to oblivion if that happens. Thankfully, the US provably won't try to attack China in a genocidial attempt to conquer half of asia for itself.

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
I'm not european or american so no, I don't have a preference for who gets nuked. Yet, there is a huge difference between Japan and Germany. The german army was acting like a "regular army", that surrendered when it was hopeless and did not have a religious desire to fight until the very end even if suicide is necessary. Germany civilians were also not prone to join the army in that bitter resistance until the end and weren't trained to fight with bamboo spears if necessary. Also, the conquest of germany wasn't planned to cause 1m american casualties and 5-10m japanese civilian and military casualties and didn't require a contested landing that would have dwarfed the one on DDay. Again, it's pure non sense to advocate that those numbers would have been better than 2 nuclear bombs because... at least it was conventional? And why can't an assessment of the potential casualties be used as a justification? Because that just sounds like grandstanding that completely ignore the reality of the war in the pacific. Not only that, but Germany was still planned to be a target if it hadn't surrendered by the time the bombs were ready. So yes, it could have happened, but only the japanese were willing go fight until the very end. They had to be shown that they would not die in a honorable resistance against the us forces, but instead will simply get nuked with no chance of fighting or retaliating.
- kubanczyk 6y ago
  Nope. The German command didn't act normally in this respect. They were in hopeless situation since June 1944 (Operation Bagration) and continued to kill and die for nonsensical reasons. They only surrendered after Hitler killed himself.
  - mardifoufs 6y ago
    Sure, the high command was delusional or had nothing to lose, but for the most part german units surrendered in massive numbers throughout 1945 especially to the western allies. Same for germany cities, where civilians usually put up 0 resistance and were revelieved to see the war end. There is no comparison possible imo, just look at the number of japanese war prisoners vs those from germany
6y ago

boomboomsubban 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. >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 Those weren't the only two options. Many scientists working on the Manhattan Project submitted the Szilárd petition, urging the US to inform Japan of the terms of surrender before dropping an atomic bomb on them. The petition was ignored. They didn't even try something as basic as that. Further, the bombs destructive power could have been demonstrated without dropping one on two cities. A non-inhabited area very possibly could have worked, but a military only target was also a possibility. This isn't an example of the losers rewriting history, it's straightforward logic. The only situation I would consider launching a nuke today is retaliatory, and I don't see how being the sole owners of a nuclear bomb makes any other situation ethical.

mardifoufs 6y ago
I'm sorry, I'm not following. The declaration of Cairo clearly stated that the US will accept unconditional surrender. There was no need to inform Japan of that by that point, they were fully aware that the US would have accepted an unconditional surrender. There were no terms to inform the Japanese of. Keep in mind they were dropping leaflets warning the target cities' population of imminent doom for days before the bombings. And why not? If you had a weapon you knew could end the war and lead to much, much less casualties on your side why not use it? What leader would prefer the death of hundreds of thousands of his own soldiers (and millions of civilian casualties) in a total war because nuclear somehow makes it less ethical?
- boomboomsubban 6y ago
  >The declaration of Cairo clearly stated that the US will accept unconditional surrender. There was no need to inform Japan of that by that point, they were fully aware that the US would have accepted an unconditional surrender Those aren't terms. On a simple, likely over discused level, the Japanese leaders were against the removal of the Emperor. If the US had provided terms accepting a figurehead role for him they may have been willing to discuss peace. >Keep in mind they were dropping leaflets warning the target cities' population of imminent doom for days before the bombings. Though leaflets were dropped in Japan, they did not list Hiroshima as a target and they were not dropped in Hiroshima. > If you had a weapon you knew could end the war and lead to much, much less casualties on your side why not use it? leader would prefer the death of hundreds of thousands of his own soldiers (and millions of civilian casualties) in a total war because nuclear somehow makes it less ethical? Again, those weren't the only options available. It's entirely possible their weapon could have ended the war without using it on cities.

thefounder 6y ago

Let's see if the history turns around and another state(i.e China) saves millions of lives in a potential invasion of the USA

mardifoufs 6y ago
Yes, and they both would nuke each other to oblivion if that happens. Thankfully, the US provably won't try to attack China in a genocidial attempt to conquer half of asia for itself.