4 ms·
> 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 defin
by 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 agoI'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 agoNope. 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 agoSure, 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
- bart_spoon 6y ago> the potential for a future, prolongued military battle It wasn't "potential", it was already happening. People fixate on the atom bombs but completely ignore the carpet bombing campaigns that had been going on long before. Dozens of Japanese cities were flattened to the same extent of destruction as Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The only difference is that with those two cities, it was accomplished with a single plane, dropping a single atomic bomb, whereas with other Japanese cities, it was accomplished with hundreds of planes dropping thousands of napalm filled warheads.