6 ms·

And the US was fine going along. "We'll keep killing civilians till you surrender".

InTheArena 5y ago
What is your alternative? Starvation Blockade, or military invasion? Do you understand what the Japanese state did to the Chinese and other peoples of southeast Asian and westerners?
- mmustapic 5y ago
  Yes, they killed civilians hoping they will surrender.
  - eitland 5y ago
    The point is the WWII Nazis and Japanese are famous for killing / torturing people even after they surrendered. I'm not saying others didn't, but Nazis and Japanese took it to another level than the west. (Although to be fair Sovjet Communists should be mentioned together with them.)
    - mmustapic 5y ago
      Yes, you are correct, Nazis and Japanese committed war crimes. And the US dropped not one, but two atomic bombs to majorly civilian population centers. Different scales, different philosophy, but mass murder of civilians just the same.
      - InTheArena 5y ago
        As pointed out many times - under any definition at the time, Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki where military targets. On the other other Kyoto was not - and was removed because of that.
        mmustapic 5y ago
        The definition of "military target" was an arbitrary definition (like most definitions) done by those who decided to bomb them. Kyoto was also a possible target favoured by the military, and it was replaced by Nagasaki. And as you know, Hiroshima was chosen because it was undamaged and the effects of the bomb could be studied. So we can add "weapons testing on civilians" to the list of crimes.
        SllX 5y ago
        You don’t start putting together charges unless you intend to prosecute. The US will not be prosecuted in the future for dropping A-Bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima in 1945. So what exactly is your aim?
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
    - numpad0 5y ago
      We kind of still do.
mc32 5y ago
And their leadership had shown that they were willing to sacrifice all their civilians (100MM) if it saved their emperor-military system.
- mmustapic 5y ago
  How were they sacrificing the civilians that lived in the Japan island? They were just there, breathing, eating and doing their lives, not shooting soldiers or invading countries. The US decided that it was fine to burn them alive to defeat the emperor-military system. You can argue that it was a better alternative than an invasion or some other strategy, sure. But the reality is that the civilians, who couldn't go anywhere else, were killed, en masse, by bombs dropped by the US.
  - mc32 5y ago
    >They were just there, breathing, eating and doing their lives, not shooting soldiers or invading countries. Japan had factories, of course, but a lot of the ancillary things to war, like uniforms, etc., were made in people's homes, rice and so on was reserved for soldiers and the surplus was then distributed in the communities. The economy was massively focused on furthering the war effort --even moreso than the US. I think you need to listen and watch Japanese programming from that era to get the picture of how involved the civilian population was in the war effort.
    - mmustapic 5y ago
      The US was doing exactly the same! Building planes, tanks, sending food, making uniforms and weapons. There were even food coupons. Do you think it would've been fine for Japan to attack with atomic bombs a couple of US cities? Would you consider that a mass killing of civilians?
      - mc32 5y ago
        And? If Japan could have, they would have done what they had at their disposal to neutralize us as their enemy. War is not fine. Dropping bombs is not fine. But they would have. They had plans to build bombs for exactly that, to drop on US cities. they also had plans to engage in biological warfare on US soil. So, yes, they would have. Japan was indiscriminate when they attacked China. If they had had the ability to reach US soil, they would have waged the same here, no doubt about it at all. Germany would have done the same too. I mean, those guys were not fooling around. Do you think the US, the UK and the SU should have taken it easy with Germany because eventually we would have won a "kinder" (no pun intended) war?
lowbloodsugar 5y ago
As a civilian, I reject the notion that I am a sheep with no responsibility for the actions of my government. Discuss.
- fulafel 5y ago
  In a democracy it's an easier position to argue.
- InTheArena 5y ago
  This. Or to put it another way - Winston Churchill said this in 1901: "The wars of peoples will be more terrible than those of kings." German actions and Japanese actions where enabled by the people in those countries. Less, in truth, in Japan then in Germany, but still there. Yamamoto could have resigned.

What is your alternative? Starvation Blockade, or military invasion? Do you understand what the Japanese state did to the Chinese and other peoples of southeast Asian and westerners?

mmustapic 5y ago
Yes, they killed civilians hoping they will surrender.
- eitland 5y ago
  The point is the WWII Nazis and Japanese are famous for killing / torturing people even after they surrendered. I'm not saying others didn't, but Nazis and Japanese took it to another level than the west. (Although to be fair Sovjet Communists should be mentioned together with them.)
  - mmustapic 5y ago
    Yes, you are correct, Nazis and Japanese committed war crimes. And the US dropped not one, but two atomic bombs to majorly civilian population centers. Different scales, different philosophy, but mass murder of civilians just the same.
    - InTheArena 5y ago
      As pointed out many times - under any definition at the time, Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki where military targets. On the other other Kyoto was not - and was removed because of that.
      - mmustapic 5y ago
        The definition of "military target" was an arbitrary definition (like most definitions) done by those who decided to bomb them. Kyoto was also a possible target favoured by the military, and it was replaced by Nagasaki. And as you know, Hiroshima was chosen because it was undamaged and the effects of the bomb could be studied. So we can add "weapons testing on civilians" to the list of crimes.
        SllX 5y ago
        You don’t start putting together charges unless you intend to prosecute. The US will not be prosecuted in the future for dropping A-Bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima in 1945. So what exactly is your aim?
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - numpad0 5y ago
    We kind of still do.

mc32 5y ago

And their leadership had shown that they were willing to sacrifice all their civilians (100MM) if it saved their emperor-military system.

mmustapic 5y ago
How were they sacrificing the civilians that lived in the Japan island? They were just there, breathing, eating and doing their lives, not shooting soldiers or invading countries. The US decided that it was fine to burn them alive to defeat the emperor-military system. You can argue that it was a better alternative than an invasion or some other strategy, sure. But the reality is that the civilians, who couldn't go anywhere else, were killed, en masse, by bombs dropped by the US.
- mc32 5y ago
  >They were just there, breathing, eating and doing their lives, not shooting soldiers or invading countries. Japan had factories, of course, but a lot of the ancillary things to war, like uniforms, etc., were made in people's homes, rice and so on was reserved for soldiers and the surplus was then distributed in the communities. The economy was massively focused on furthering the war effort --even moreso than the US. I think you need to listen and watch Japanese programming from that era to get the picture of how involved the civilian population was in the war effort.
  - mmustapic 5y ago
    The US was doing exactly the same! Building planes, tanks, sending food, making uniforms and weapons. There were even food coupons. Do you think it would've been fine for Japan to attack with atomic bombs a couple of US cities? Would you consider that a mass killing of civilians?
    - mc32 5y ago
      And? If Japan could have, they would have done what they had at their disposal to neutralize us as their enemy. War is not fine. Dropping bombs is not fine. But they would have. They had plans to build bombs for exactly that, to drop on US cities. they also had plans to engage in biological warfare on US soil. So, yes, they would have. Japan was indiscriminate when they attacked China. If they had had the ability to reach US soil, they would have waged the same here, no doubt about it at all. Germany would have done the same too. I mean, those guys were not fooling around. Do you think the US, the UK and the SU should have taken it easy with Germany because eventually we would have won a "kinder" (no pun intended) war?

lowbloodsugar 5y ago

As a civilian, I reject the notion that I am a sheep with no responsibility for the actions of my government. Discuss.

fulafel 5y ago
In a democracy it's an easier position to argue.
InTheArena 5y ago
This. Or to put it another way - Winston Churchill said this in 1901: "The wars of peoples will be more terrible than those of kings." German actions and Japanese actions where enabled by the people in those countries. Less, in truth, in Japan then in Germany, but still there. Yamamoto could have resigned.