18 ms·

> I am not the only one who believes that in the long term the atomic bombs saved millions of Japanese lives. You're not the only one, but most of the people w

by the_af 5y ago

> I am not the only one who believes that in the long term the atomic bombs saved millions of Japanese lives. You're not the only one, but most of the people who believe like you are Americans. Outside the US the prevalent view is pretty much against those atomic bombings; had the US lost the war, the people who ordered those bombings would have been found guilty of war crimes and hanged. My own subjective opinion is that the US needs this narrative of "but we ended up saving lives", because anything else would run contrary to their own self image of "we are always the good guys". Consequently, alternative considerations like that the bombings were a show of force with the Soviet Union as the target audience tend to get downplayed in the US, because it's harder to think of oneself as the good guy when you killed hundreds of thousands of civilians in one country in order to put fear into the leadership of another, unrelated country.

golergka 5y ago
> Consequently, alternative considerations like that the bombings were a show of force with the Soviet Union But how is that an alternative? Showing force to Soviet Union would ALSO save millions of lives.
- the_af 5y ago
  What do you mean? Regarding the coming Cold War, then MAD, etc? I find that kind of reasoning troubling. It can be used to justify pretty awful things. This is a completely made up example for the sake of argument, a reduction to the absurd, but suppose they decide that vaporizing Africa, Asia and parts of Europe is better for world peace long-term... should they do it? "Sure, billions will die, but trust us that long term more lives will be saved in the coming centuries". Ok, so do we push the red button then?
InTheArena 5y ago
Speaking as a historian, The atomic bombs being horrible weapons that at the time where strategically justified is the consensus view among non-populist historians. There is a secondary view that it was done to an eye of using the bomb as a threat to Stalin, but all research of the decision makers does not reveal this to be the case. In fact, the research shows over and over that the Americans where desperate to get the Russians into the pacific theater. The view that the use of the atomic bomb was a effort to threaten Stalin and keep the Russians from the war was popularized by Tsuyoshi Hasegawa's book in 2005, but that book has been pretty much discredited in historical communities. A example analysis is here: https://www.bu.edu/historic/hs/kort.html https://www.bu.edu/historic/hs/kort.html It's also not that the United States opinion diverges from much of the world. Outside of Japan, most countries have a similar percentage of people who view that it was justified or not. (79% of Japanese thing it was unjustified versus 44% of Americans).
- the_af 5y ago
  You'd have to do more than "speak as a historian" to convince me. You'd have to convince me (with references of supporting and opposing works) that this is the mainstream view for historians outside the US. "Non-populist" historians is a weasel word that will let you discard any historian's opinion that doesn't fit your thesis. I propose we simply divide between "American" and "not American", which is more objective. > It's also not that the United States opinion diverges from much of the world. That's wrong, most of the world disagrees with the "terrible necessity" narrative which is so popular in the US. Of course Japan disagrees with it, being on the receiving end (and having their own blind spots to their crimes), but the rest of the world disagrees as well. It's normal, the US is fixated on a single narrative that lets them cling to the belief they are always the good guys. Any other country would do the same, agreed -- everyone is the hero of their own story. But only one country dropped two atomic bombs on civilian populations.
  - lowbloodsugar 5y ago
    >You'd have to convince me (with references of supporting and opposing works) that this is the mainstream view for historians outside the US. >most of the world disagrees with the "terrible necessity" narrative Thank you for speaking for me and most of the world. I assume you have "references of supporting and opposing works"?
  - ksdale 5y ago
    So you're trying to argue that the U.S. is actually the bad guys? Perhaps the good guy/bad guy dichotomy simply isn't that useful. The U.S. did terrible things during the war, and there is no excuse for that. The U.S. is also only directly responsible for a very small fraction of the total civilian deaths in the war, and for none of the genocidal deaths. The world today is a better place for the Allies having won the war, and the U.S. effort is a major reason that happened. It's silly for Americans to cling to the narrative that we're always making good choices, that's obviously untrue, but I think it's equally silly to argue that the totality of what the U.S. did during World War 2 was worse than anything any other country did, especially worse enough to make the U.S. the bad guys. But I don't think you need to call them the bad guys to acknowledge that they committed atrocities.
ThrowawayR2 5y ago
> "You're not the only one, but most of the people who believe like you are Americans." Conveniently forgetting about the enormous population of China and the rest of Asia subject to the depredations of the Imperial Japanese Army, who also overwhelmingly approve of the atomic bombings. I have relatives who lived during the war or its aftermath and, needless to say, they do not share your concerns in the slightest. IMO, it's more accurate to say that the handwringing over the bombings is a small minority of Westerners advocating fringe theories that try to paint Japan as a victim rather than an aggressor.
- the_af 5y ago
  No, you're conflating different things. I'm sure Japan, through their crimes, earned the hatred of many countries in Asia which welcomed the atomic bombings as retribution. But the narrative I'm mostly arguing against is not that many welcomed the bombings, but the specific American narrative that there was no other way and that they "saved Japanese lives". If you want to argue the Japanese (civilians and all) deserved it, that's a separate conversation.
  - panick21_ 5y ago
    Please tell us what other strategy you advocate. They basically were 2 alternative. US Army wanted an invasion of main land Japan. US Navy wanted a longer term blockade that would literally lead to mass starvation and basically transform Japan back the Shogunate period in terms of population. A good argument can be made that both of these would have lead to far more deaths.
    - the_af 5y ago
      I don't know that those were the only two alternatives. > Please tell us what other strategy you advocate. "Tell us": who is "us"? In any case, I'm thankfully not in the situation to decide, nor am I an armchair general, so I'll have to excuse myself from invading or bombing Japan. To state my position once again: the narrative popular in the US, that the atomic bombings were justified as a terrible necessity and that they actually saved lives ("Japanese lives", like someone else stated) is only popular in the US, and it exists mostly to enable them to retain their sense of being the good guys. Other countries, unburdened by the necessity of always making the US look like the good guys, don't favor this particular narrative.
dandare 5y ago
Different countries certainly have different biases, but that does not mean that rational analysis of the problem is not possible. Would Japan surrender on August 15 if the bombs were not dropped? Could the US drop the first bomb on the Tokyo Bay instead? etc. PS: I am European.
- throwanem 5y ago
  > Could the US drop the first bomb on the Tokyo Bay instead? Sure, but then the discussion would be around the morality of demolishing the capital of Japan with a manmade tsunami, so I guess I'm not sure I see what that would help?
- the_af 5y ago
  Those are valid questions. I think Japan was on the verge of surrender anyway, just some careful wording and additional pressure from the Soviet Union's military might would have done it. If this was truly about saving lives, like the traditional American narrative goes, then surely some concessions that allowed their emperor to save face would have been warranted. If, on the contrary, testing the bomb on civilian populations and infrastructure was the priority, it stands to reason imposing harder conditions on surrender would be the course of action.
  - xeromal 5y ago
    Do you think the Soviet Union would've just stopped at pressure or do you think they would've steamrolled through Japan just like they did in Germany?
    - the_af 5y ago
      I honestly don't know. Maybe they would have stopped, maybe they would have steamrolled it. It's an alternative to nuking Japan, though, and that's my point.
      - xeromal 5y ago
        Oh for sure, I just don't think it's as certain as some people make it out to be. It was a calculated risk just like dropping the bombs.
panick21_ 5y ago
I'm not from the US, and I have studied WW2 a lot, and in my opinion, the Nuclear bomb US was very defensible at the time and they did very likely save life. If you consider an alternative history where the US army invades main land Japan, you have been a massacre of epic proportions. City after city taken in battles with civilians in the middle and Japanese soldiers and civilians committing mass suicides. And yes, bombing civilians can be considered a 'war crime', but that just means all WW2 nations did it. And Japan and Germany (and Soviets) also did mass crimes against civilians for even less military reasons. > Consequently, alternative considerations like that the bombings were a show of force with the Soviet Union as the target audience tend to get downplayed in the US, because it's harder to think of oneself as the good guy when you killed hundreds of thousands of civilians in one country in order to put fear into the leadership of another, unrelated country. Its downplayed because the historical evidence for it as a main reason is very small.
- the_af 5y ago
  > Its downplayed because the historical evidence for it as a main reason is very small. It's obvious I (and many others outside the US) disagree.
  - panick21_ 5y ago
    Then please show the historical evidence for that. You can't just disagree based on your opinion. The US government has opened up a lot of documentation, we have a deeper insight into that process then most things in history. And pretty much all historians who look at it come to the same conclusion.
    - arbitrage 5y ago
      > You can't just disagree based on your opinion. There is no rule that says that.
      - pessimizer 5y ago
        There is. Let's call it the rule of being interesting to other people. Your mother cares how you feel because you feel it, but other people care how you feel because you argued it well.
dijksterhuis 5y ago
> had the US lost the war, the people who ordered those bombings would have been found guilty of war crimes and hanged. Just gonna leave this here (from the wiki page) > Many of the Allied airmen who were captured after being shot down over Japan were mistreated. On 8 September 1944, the Cabinet of Japan directed that indiscriminate bombing constituted a war crime despite the fact there was no international treaty or instrument protecting a civilian population specifically from attack by aircraft at the time. As a result, captured Allied airmen were subject to trial and possible execution. Don't wish to discuss whether it was morally right or wrong. Just pointing out it's difficult to call something a "crime" if there was limited legal basis for it (no international treaty) at the time. Let's not judge the people of yesteryear by today's moral standards. I sure as shit don't want to be judged on some of the stuff I've done based on standards in 70 years time. Edit: Also, war is hell.
- hh3k0 5y ago
  > Just pointing out it's difficult to call something a "crime" if there was limited legal basis for it (no international treaty) at the time. You are unaware of the Nuremberg trials, it seems?
  - dijksterhuis 5y ago
    I'm just repeating what is on the wiki page and saying that 70 years ago != today.
    - hh3k0 5y ago
      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_trials#Ex_post_facto_charges https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_trials#Ex_post_fac...
      - dijksterhuis 5y ago
        I said it's difficult to call something a crime when there is limited existing legal basis. Not that it wasn't a crime. Nor that it was a crime. Also, definitely IANAL.
gpm 5y ago
> Outside the US the prevalent view is pretty much against those atomic bombings Outside of the US is a big place, do you have some source to argue that this is prevalent view as a whole, and not just the prevalent view in whichever corner of the earth you happen to be in?
ufmace 5y ago
> Outside the US the prevalent view is pretty much against those atomic bombings Sorry, what gives you (or anyone else) the right to speak for the "prevalent view" in the entire rest of the world outside of the US? In my experience, many Western Europeans love to decry American arrogance (okay some truth to that), but then go on to themselves claim the right to speak for the entire rest of the world. There are a great many countries in the world, and they all have the right to speak for themselves. Some may have had the luck to have not suffered too horribly for various reasons during WWII. Other have suffered horribly under the Axis powers, and don't decry the brutal tactics that were sometimes needed to win the war against a far more brutal enemy as soon as possible.
drran 5y ago
So, if RF will invade Ukraine again and Ukraine will nuke a major city in RF in return, it will be a war crime?
- the_af 5y ago
  You seem anxious to bring Russia and Ukraine into this conversation, which is puzzling. I'm uninterested in that, but let me give you a limited response in two parts: 1. I consider nuking a major city a war crime, regardless of who does it (the US, Russia or Ukraine). 2. If Ukraine or Russia nuke any city there will be world trouble of the sort that will make our little conversation here irrelevant. So pray it doesn't happen. Thankfully this scenario is highly unlikely.
  - drran 5y ago
    So, you see no difference between invading and defending. If RF will kill millions of Ukrainian with conventional weapons, like they did in 1932-1934, or capture and destroy another major city, like Grozny, it's OK for you. If Ukraine will do the same for RF in return, then it's war crime for you, because victim of conventional weapon ≠ victim of nuclear weapon. Right? > Thankfully this scenario is highly unlikely. Two nuclear nations are at war since 2014. Where you live?
    - the_af 5y ago
      > So, you see no difference between invading and defending I obviously see difference, but a war crime is a war crime. > Where you live? A world in which neither the Ukraine nor Russia are stupid enough to risk nuclear escalation and obliteration. Where do you?
      - drran 5y ago
        Can you cite an international agreement that says that use of nuclear weapon for defense against an aggressor is considered as war crime? > Where do you? In the world where RF is stupid enough to invade the nuclear country. I'm from Ukraine.
jleyank 5y ago
Those bombing Japan were already war criminals for the firebombing long before the Atomic bombs appeared on the scene. They were merely more efficient to deliver. But then, so were the British and German bombing efforts.
refurb 5y ago
I’m outside the US and nah, the bombings are viewed as quite justified. Japan track record during the war is on par with Nazi Germany when it comes to genocide, mass killings of civilians, war of aggression, etc. And it took two atomic bombs and even then Japan took time to capitulate. The US could have just blockaded Japan and starved them out but is hundreds of thousands of civilian dead from starvation any better?
throw0101a 5y ago
> You're not the only one, but most of the people who believe like you are Americans. Outside the US the prevalent view is pretty much against those atomic bombings; had the US lost the war, the people who ordered those bombings would have been found guilty of war crimes and hanged. It's a good thing that the US did not lose the war, as otherwise the large part of the planet would be living under a xenophobic/racist, totalitarian regime that viewed foreigners of little value and did experimentation on human subjects: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731 The Japanese War Council were not planning on surrendering after the first atomic bomb: > The Japanese Army and Navy had their own independent atomic-bomb programs and therefore the Japanese understood enough to know how very difficult building it would be. Therefore, many Japanese and in particular the military members of the government refused to believe the United States had built an atomic bomb, and the Japanese military ordered their own independent tests to determine the cause of Hiroshima's destruction.[84] Admiral Soemu Toyoda, the Chief of the Naval General Staff, argued that even if the United States had made one, they could not have many more.[85] American strategists, having anticipated a reaction like Toyoda's, planned to drop a second bomb shortly after the first, to convince the Japanese that the U.S. had a large supply.[61][86] * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan#Hiroshima,_Manchuria,_and_Nagasaki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan#Hiroshima,_... Even after the second bomb there was still some disagreement: > In the middle of the meeting, shortly after 11:00, news arrived that Nagasaki, on the west coast of Kyūshū, had been hit by a second atomic bomb (called "Fat Man" by the United States). By the time the meeting ended, the Big Six had split 3–3. Suzuki, Tōgō, and Admiral Yonai favored Tōgō's one additional condition to Potsdam, while General Anami, General Umezu, and Admiral Toyoda insisted on three further terms that modified Potsdam: that Japan handle their own disarmament, that Japan deal with any Japanese war criminals, and that there be no occupation of Japan.[96] * Ibid And even after the Emperor ordered the cessation of hostilities (note: he never used the word "surrender" in his address) there were still elements in Japan who wanted to fight: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyūjō_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyūjō_incident
- the_af 5y ago
  > It's a good thing that the US did not lose the war, as otherwise the large part of the planet would be living under a xenophobic/racist, totalitarian regime that viewed foreigners of little value and did experimentation on human subjects It seems you're under the impression I was arguing the Japanese weren't war criminals with many of their WW2 actions or that I believe they ought to have won the war, or at least that I believe the US ought to have lost WW2, or some variation of that. But if you read carefully what I wrote, I'm saying nothing of the sort, am I? I'm arguing about the atomic bombings and American beliefs about their justification. So spare me the description of Japanese war crimes: I'm aware of them and I wouldn't want to live in a world where Imperial Japan had won WW2.
UIUC_06 5y ago
No, but the ones who believe like you are mostly Western European and Canadian 20-something socialists. Who are interested in East Asian people who suffered under the Japanese Army only as an abstraction, don't actually know any, and don't care much about them anyway. Maybe they even say "some people did something" about the Nanking Massacre, or the Korean comfort women.
- the_af 5y ago
  Your reply seems to be conflating two topics: - Reasons for the atomic bombings of Japan, and whether many Americans are self-deluded about their actual reasons (like I'm arguing). - The horrible crimes Japan committed during WW2, and some alleged "defense" of Japan maybe? (As far as I know, everyone today knows about the Rape of Nanking, the Bataan death march, and the forced prostitution of Korean women). It's possible to believe both that the atomic bombings of Japan were a terrible crime (and that Americans delude themselves about said bombings) and also that Japan committed heinous crimes and that it's good that it lost the war. > but the ones who believe like you are mostly Western European and Canadian 20-something socialists I'm none of those.
nekcihc 5y ago
Your subjective opinion does not account losses, that US had when they were fighting against Japanese - outside of Japan - only fighting over very tiny islands. So, in the end they saved ~1 million US soldiers, because fight on mainland(also in China and Korea) was nightmare hell scenario for US. During WW2 US gave to Soviet Union materials, newest machines and technological secrets(including technology and materials of atomic bomb, that supplemented and sped up development of Soviet Union atomic bomb project), what other allies of US did not receive. This narrative, that US was bombing Japan, to put Soviet Union in fear does not account for that Soviet Union had infiltrated US, that even US president was not working for US, but for Soviet Union. Even nowadays those US traitors, that gave away more, that what was agreed on Lend-Lease, have not been prosecuted, because their positions were top positions and their deed and betrayal of US is not common knowledge to modern Americans. We can also look from that side, that USSR was unreliable ally(also to Third Reich, which USSR was preparing to invade, while it hoped that it was busy invading Britain) and did not want to enter war with Japanese, who at that point still controlled Manchuria, Korea and very large parts of China. They only entered war, because they realised, that they might miss out on piece of Japanese territories, because US would make their own peace and Japan would surrender wholly to US - only because of those atomic bombs. For those that would think, that USSR was sparing their troops - it has not been concern of USSR until the day it collapsed and was not concern for Stalin, when he was postponing attack on Japan, like he was playing with Germans.
- the_af 5y ago
  > We can also look from that side, that USSR was unreliable ally(also to Third Reich, which USSR was preparing to invade, while it hoped that it was busy invading Britain) This has been thoroughly debunked by most mainstream historians. The view that the USSR had infiltrated the US and was commandeering its war effort during WW2 is so fringe I'm not touching it with a ten feet pole.

by the_af 5y ago

golergka 5y ago

> Consequently, alternative considerations like that the bombings were a show of force with the Soviet Union But how is that an alternative? Showing force to Soviet Union would ALSO save millions of lives.

the_af 5y ago
What do you mean? Regarding the coming Cold War, then MAD, etc? I find that kind of reasoning troubling. It can be used to justify pretty awful things. This is a completely made up example for the sake of argument, a reduction to the absurd, but suppose they decide that vaporizing Africa, Asia and parts of Europe is better for world peace long-term... should they do it? "Sure, billions will die, but trust us that long term more lives will be saved in the coming centuries". Ok, so do we push the red button then?

InTheArena 5y ago

Speaking as a historian, The atomic bombs being horrible weapons that at the time where strategically justified is the consensus view among non-populist historians. There is a secondary view that it was done to an eye of using the bomb as a threat to Stalin, but all research of the decision makers does not reveal this to be the case. In fact, the research shows over and over that the Americans where desperate to get the Russians into the pacific theater. The view that the use of the atomic bomb was a effort to threaten Stalin and keep the Russians from the war was popularized by Tsuyoshi Hasegawa's book in 2005, but that book has been pretty much discredited in historical communities. A example analysis is here: https://www.bu.edu/historic/hs/kort.html https://www.bu.edu/historic/hs/kort.html It's also not that the United States opinion diverges from much of the world. Outside of Japan, most countries have a similar percentage of people who view that it was justified or not. (79% of Japanese thing it was unjustified versus 44% of Americans).

the_af 5y ago
You'd have to do more than "speak as a historian" to convince me. You'd have to convince me (with references of supporting and opposing works) that this is the mainstream view for historians outside the US. "Non-populist" historians is a weasel word that will let you discard any historian's opinion that doesn't fit your thesis. I propose we simply divide between "American" and "not American", which is more objective. > It's also not that the United States opinion diverges from much of the world. That's wrong, most of the world disagrees with the "terrible necessity" narrative which is so popular in the US. Of course Japan disagrees with it, being on the receiving end (and having their own blind spots to their crimes), but the rest of the world disagrees as well. It's normal, the US is fixated on a single narrative that lets them cling to the belief they are always the good guys. Any other country would do the same, agreed -- everyone is the hero of their own story. But only one country dropped two atomic bombs on civilian populations.
- lowbloodsugar 5y ago
  >You'd have to convince me (with references of supporting and opposing works) that this is the mainstream view for historians outside the US. >most of the world disagrees with the "terrible necessity" narrative Thank you for speaking for me and most of the world. I assume you have "references of supporting and opposing works"?
- ksdale 5y ago
  So you're trying to argue that the U.S. is actually the bad guys? Perhaps the good guy/bad guy dichotomy simply isn't that useful. The U.S. did terrible things during the war, and there is no excuse for that. The U.S. is also only directly responsible for a very small fraction of the total civilian deaths in the war, and for none of the genocidal deaths. The world today is a better place for the Allies having won the war, and the U.S. effort is a major reason that happened. It's silly for Americans to cling to the narrative that we're always making good choices, that's obviously untrue, but I think it's equally silly to argue that the totality of what the U.S. did during World War 2 was worse than anything any other country did, especially worse enough to make the U.S. the bad guys. But I don't think you need to call them the bad guys to acknowledge that they committed atrocities.

ThrowawayR2 5y ago

> "You're not the only one, but most of the people who believe like you are Americans." Conveniently forgetting about the enormous population of China and the rest of Asia subject to the depredations of the Imperial Japanese Army, who also overwhelmingly approve of the atomic bombings. I have relatives who lived during the war or its aftermath and, needless to say, they do not share your concerns in the slightest. IMO, it's more accurate to say that the handwringing over the bombings is a small minority of Westerners advocating fringe theories that try to paint Japan as a victim rather than an aggressor.

the_af 5y ago
No, you're conflating different things. I'm sure Japan, through their crimes, earned the hatred of many countries in Asia which welcomed the atomic bombings as retribution. But the narrative I'm mostly arguing against is not that many welcomed the bombings, but the specific American narrative that there was no other way and that they "saved Japanese lives". If you want to argue the Japanese (civilians and all) deserved it, that's a separate conversation.
- panick21_ 5y ago
  Please tell us what other strategy you advocate. They basically were 2 alternative. US Army wanted an invasion of main land Japan. US Navy wanted a longer term blockade that would literally lead to mass starvation and basically transform Japan back the Shogunate period in terms of population. A good argument can be made that both of these would have lead to far more deaths.
  - the_af 5y ago
    I don't know that those were the only two alternatives. > Please tell us what other strategy you advocate. "Tell us": who is "us"? In any case, I'm thankfully not in the situation to decide, nor am I an armchair general, so I'll have to excuse myself from invading or bombing Japan. To state my position once again: the narrative popular in the US, that the atomic bombings were justified as a terrible necessity and that they actually saved lives ("Japanese lives", like someone else stated) is only popular in the US, and it exists mostly to enable them to retain their sense of being the good guys. Other countries, unburdened by the necessity of always making the US look like the good guys, don't favor this particular narrative.

dandare 5y ago

Different countries certainly have different biases, but that does not mean that rational analysis of the problem is not possible. Would Japan surrender on August 15 if the bombs were not dropped? Could the US drop the first bomb on the Tokyo Bay instead? etc. PS: I am European.

throwanem 5y ago
> Could the US drop the first bomb on the Tokyo Bay instead? Sure, but then the discussion would be around the morality of demolishing the capital of Japan with a manmade tsunami, so I guess I'm not sure I see what that would help?
the_af 5y ago
Those are valid questions. I think Japan was on the verge of surrender anyway, just some careful wording and additional pressure from the Soviet Union's military might would have done it. If this was truly about saving lives, like the traditional American narrative goes, then surely some concessions that allowed their emperor to save face would have been warranted. If, on the contrary, testing the bomb on civilian populations and infrastructure was the priority, it stands to reason imposing harder conditions on surrender would be the course of action.
- xeromal 5y ago
  Do you think the Soviet Union would've just stopped at pressure or do you think they would've steamrolled through Japan just like they did in Germany?
  - the_af 5y ago
    I honestly don't know. Maybe they would have stopped, maybe they would have steamrolled it. It's an alternative to nuking Japan, though, and that's my point.
    - xeromal 5y ago
      Oh for sure, I just don't think it's as certain as some people make it out to be. It was a calculated risk just like dropping the bombs.

panick21_ 5y ago

I'm not from the US, and I have studied WW2 a lot, and in my opinion, the Nuclear bomb US was very defensible at the time and they did very likely save life. If you consider an alternative history where the US army invades main land Japan, you have been a massacre of epic proportions. City after city taken in battles with civilians in the middle and Japanese soldiers and civilians committing mass suicides. And yes, bombing civilians can be considered a 'war crime', but that just means all WW2 nations did it. And Japan and Germany (and Soviets) also did mass crimes against civilians for even less military reasons. > Consequently, alternative considerations like that the bombings were a show of force with the Soviet Union as the target audience tend to get downplayed in the US, because it's harder to think of oneself as the good guy when you killed hundreds of thousands of civilians in one country in order to put fear into the leadership of another, unrelated country. Its downplayed because the historical evidence for it as a main reason is very small.

the_af 5y ago
> Its downplayed because the historical evidence for it as a main reason is very small. It's obvious I (and many others outside the US) disagree.
- panick21_ 5y ago
  Then please show the historical evidence for that. You can't just disagree based on your opinion. The US government has opened up a lot of documentation, we have a deeper insight into that process then most things in history. And pretty much all historians who look at it come to the same conclusion.
  - arbitrage 5y ago
    > You can't just disagree based on your opinion. There is no rule that says that.
    - pessimizer 5y ago
      There is. Let's call it the rule of being interesting to other people. Your mother cares how you feel because you feel it, but other people care how you feel because you argued it well.

dijksterhuis 5y ago

> had the US lost the war, the people who ordered those bombings would have been found guilty of war crimes and hanged. Just gonna leave this here (from the wiki page) > Many of the Allied airmen who were captured after being shot down over Japan were mistreated. On 8 September 1944, the Cabinet of Japan directed that indiscriminate bombing constituted a war crime despite the fact there was no international treaty or instrument protecting a civilian population specifically from attack by aircraft at the time. As a result, captured Allied airmen were subject to trial and possible execution. Don't wish to discuss whether it was morally right or wrong. Just pointing out it's difficult to call something a "crime" if there was limited legal basis for it (no international treaty) at the time. Let's not judge the people of yesteryear by today's moral standards. I sure as shit don't want to be judged on some of the stuff I've done based on standards in 70 years time. Edit: Also, war is hell.

hh3k0 5y ago
> Just pointing out it's difficult to call something a "crime" if there was limited legal basis for it (no international treaty) at the time. You are unaware of the Nuremberg trials, it seems?
- dijksterhuis 5y ago
  I'm just repeating what is on the wiki page and saying that 70 years ago != today.
  - hh3k0 5y ago
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_trials#Ex_post_facto_charges https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_trials#Ex_post_fac...
    - dijksterhuis 5y ago
      I said it's difficult to call something a crime when there is limited existing legal basis. Not that it wasn't a crime. Nor that it was a crime. Also, definitely IANAL.

gpm 5y ago

> Outside the US the prevalent view is pretty much against those atomic bombings Outside of the US is a big place, do you have some source to argue that this is prevalent view as a whole, and not just the prevalent view in whichever corner of the earth you happen to be in?

ufmace 5y ago

> Outside the US the prevalent view is pretty much against those atomic bombings Sorry, what gives you (or anyone else) the right to speak for the "prevalent view" in the entire rest of the world outside of the US? In my experience, many Western Europeans love to decry American arrogance (okay some truth to that), but then go on to themselves claim the right to speak for the entire rest of the world. There are a great many countries in the world, and they all have the right to speak for themselves. Some may have had the luck to have not suffered too horribly for various reasons during WWII. Other have suffered horribly under the Axis powers, and don't decry the brutal tactics that were sometimes needed to win the war against a far more brutal enemy as soon as possible.

drran 5y ago

So, if RF will invade Ukraine again and Ukraine will nuke a major city in RF in return, it will be a war crime?

the_af 5y ago
You seem anxious to bring Russia and Ukraine into this conversation, which is puzzling. I'm uninterested in that, but let me give you a limited response in two parts: 1. I consider nuking a major city a war crime, regardless of who does it (the US, Russia or Ukraine). 2. If Ukraine or Russia nuke any city there will be world trouble of the sort that will make our little conversation here irrelevant. So pray it doesn't happen. Thankfully this scenario is highly unlikely.
- drran 5y ago
  So, you see no difference between invading and defending. If RF will kill millions of Ukrainian with conventional weapons, like they did in 1932-1934, or capture and destroy another major city, like Grozny, it's OK for you. If Ukraine will do the same for RF in return, then it's war crime for you, because victim of conventional weapon ≠ victim of nuclear weapon. Right? > Thankfully this scenario is highly unlikely. Two nuclear nations are at war since 2014. Where you live?
  - the_af 5y ago
    > So, you see no difference between invading and defending I obviously see difference, but a war crime is a war crime. > Where you live? A world in which neither the Ukraine nor Russia are stupid enough to risk nuclear escalation and obliteration. Where do you?
    - drran 5y ago
      Can you cite an international agreement that says that use of nuclear weapon for defense against an aggressor is considered as war crime? > Where do you? In the world where RF is stupid enough to invade the nuclear country. I'm from Ukraine.

jleyank 5y ago

Those bombing Japan were already war criminals for the firebombing long before the Atomic bombs appeared on the scene. They were merely more efficient to deliver. But then, so were the British and German bombing efforts.

refurb 5y ago

I’m outside the US and nah, the bombings are viewed as quite justified. Japan track record during the war is on par with Nazi Germany when it comes to genocide, mass killings of civilians, war of aggression, etc. And it took two atomic bombs and even then Japan took time to capitulate. The US could have just blockaded Japan and starved them out but is hundreds of thousands of civilian dead from starvation any better?

throw0101a 5y ago

> You're not the only one, but most of the people who believe like you are Americans. Outside the US the prevalent view is pretty much against those atomic bombings; had the US lost the war, the people who ordered those bombings would have been found guilty of war crimes and hanged. It's a good thing that the US did not lose the war, as otherwise the large part of the planet would be living under a xenophobic/racist, totalitarian regime that viewed foreigners of little value and did experimentation on human subjects: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731 The Japanese War Council were not planning on surrendering after the first atomic bomb: > The Japanese Army and Navy had their own independent atomic-bomb programs and therefore the Japanese understood enough to know how very difficult building it would be. Therefore, many Japanese and in particular the military members of the government refused to believe the United States had built an atomic bomb, and the Japanese military ordered their own independent tests to determine the cause of Hiroshima's destruction.[84] Admiral Soemu Toyoda, the Chief of the Naval General Staff, argued that even if the United States had made one, they could not have many more.[85] American strategists, having anticipated a reaction like Toyoda's, planned to drop a second bomb shortly after the first, to convince the Japanese that the U.S. had a large supply.[61][86] * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan#Hiroshima,_Manchuria,_and_Nagasaki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan#Hiroshima,_... Even after the second bomb there was still some disagreement: > In the middle of the meeting, shortly after 11:00, news arrived that Nagasaki, on the west coast of Kyūshū, had been hit by a second atomic bomb (called "Fat Man" by the United States). By the time the meeting ended, the Big Six had split 3–3. Suzuki, Tōgō, and Admiral Yonai favored Tōgō's one additional condition to Potsdam, while General Anami, General Umezu, and Admiral Toyoda insisted on three further terms that modified Potsdam: that Japan handle their own disarmament, that Japan deal with any Japanese war criminals, and that there be no occupation of Japan.[96] * Ibid And even after the Emperor ordered the cessation of hostilities (note: he never used the word "surrender" in his address) there were still elements in Japan who wanted to fight: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyūjō_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyūjō_incident

the_af 5y ago
> It's a good thing that the US did not lose the war, as otherwise the large part of the planet would be living under a xenophobic/racist, totalitarian regime that viewed foreigners of little value and did experimentation on human subjects It seems you're under the impression I was arguing the Japanese weren't war criminals with many of their WW2 actions or that I believe they ought to have won the war, or at least that I believe the US ought to have lost WW2, or some variation of that. But if you read carefully what I wrote, I'm saying nothing of the sort, am I? I'm arguing about the atomic bombings and American beliefs about their justification. So spare me the description of Japanese war crimes: I'm aware of them and I wouldn't want to live in a world where Imperial Japan had won WW2.

UIUC_06 5y ago

No, but the ones who believe like you are mostly Western European and Canadian 20-something socialists. Who are interested in East Asian people who suffered under the Japanese Army only as an abstraction, don't actually know any, and don't care much about them anyway. Maybe they even say "some people did something" about the Nanking Massacre, or the Korean comfort women.

the_af 5y ago
Your reply seems to be conflating two topics: - Reasons for the atomic bombings of Japan, and whether many Americans are self-deluded about their actual reasons (like I'm arguing). - The horrible crimes Japan committed during WW2, and some alleged "defense" of Japan maybe? (As far as I know, everyone today knows about the Rape of Nanking, the Bataan death march, and the forced prostitution of Korean women). It's possible to believe both that the atomic bombings of Japan were a terrible crime (and that Americans delude themselves about said bombings) and also that Japan committed heinous crimes and that it's good that it lost the war. > but the ones who believe like you are mostly Western European and Canadian 20-something socialists I'm none of those.

nekcihc 5y ago

Your subjective opinion does not account losses, that US had when they were fighting against Japanese - outside of Japan - only fighting over very tiny islands. So, in the end they saved ~1 million US soldiers, because fight on mainland(also in China and Korea) was nightmare hell scenario for US. During WW2 US gave to Soviet Union materials, newest machines and technological secrets(including technology and materials of atomic bomb, that supplemented and sped up development of Soviet Union atomic bomb project), what other allies of US did not receive. This narrative, that US was bombing Japan, to put Soviet Union in fear does not account for that Soviet Union had infiltrated US, that even US president was not working for US, but for Soviet Union. Even nowadays those US traitors, that gave away more, that what was agreed on Lend-Lease, have not been prosecuted, because their positions were top positions and their deed and betrayal of US is not common knowledge to modern Americans. We can also look from that side, that USSR was unreliable ally(also to Third Reich, which USSR was preparing to invade, while it hoped that it was busy invading Britain) and did not want to enter war with Japanese, who at that point still controlled Manchuria, Korea and very large parts of China. They only entered war, because they realised, that they might miss out on piece of Japanese territories, because US would make their own peace and Japan would surrender wholly to US - only because of those atomic bombs. For those that would think, that USSR was sparing their troops - it has not been concern of USSR until the day it collapsed and was not concern for Stalin, when he was postponing attack on Japan, like he was playing with Germans.

the_af 5y ago
> We can also look from that side, that USSR was unreliable ally(also to Third Reich, which USSR was preparing to invade, while it hoped that it was busy invading Britain) This has been thoroughly debunked by most mainstream historians. The view that the USSR had infiltrated the US and was commandeering its war effort during WW2 is so fringe I'm not touching it with a ten feet pole.