5 ms·

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

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?
    - mmustapic 5y ago
      My question is: if Japan would have done that, would you consider it a war crime, or an atrocity? We can use phrases like "neutralise the enemy", but the reality is, hundreds of thousands of civilians were killed in order to defeat the enemy.
      - mc32 5y ago
        War is crime. It's preposterous to frame it as not a crime. Crimes will happen in war, whether a "good" war or war on the "bad" side. War is crime. There should be no confusion about that. In the end, would have the Japanese population suffered more with a conventional ground war vs firebombings or atomic bombings? I believe the consensus is stopping the war as quickly as possible spared the population the worst of it.
        mmustapic 5y ago
        Then we agree, and that was my point, Allied bombings of mostly civilians is a crime.
        mc32 5y ago
        Not "Allied" but all bombings, including Axis bombings of purely civilians were a crime. However, you have to make a decision do you engage or sit back and watch the larger crime happen? In great wars like this the distinction between military and civilian is tenuous. Japan, like Germany, was thoroughly a martial economy. If you start a fire, don't complain later you got burnt.
- InTheArena 5y ago
  Just to be clear - the Japanese factories where in the cities. The Japanese pulled apart their factories and ran forges in people's backyards. Japanese civilians in battle zones routinely walked up to Allied soldiers with grenades to blow them up. They threw themselves off cliffs rather then surrender. We still have this concept that somehow the German and Japanese citizens where not involved in the actions of their governments. It's as much of a myth as the myth of a "Clean Wehrmacht"
  - mmustapic 5y ago
    Of course you have factories in cities, where would they be? They needed to be close to the workers. And about civilians attacking Allied soldiers, do you have references for people in Tokyo, Hiroshima or Nagasaki doing it?
    - volkl48 5y ago
      Commenting on the latter point: The Battle of Okinawa seems like an example - Both willingly and by coercion, a large portion of the civilian population was sent into the battle to die with minimal training or equipment, including children. Is there some reason to think the populations of those cities would have acted differently if the front lines came to them at that time?
    - InTheArena 5y ago
      No. just to be clear: They literally disassembled their factories in many cases, and put equipment into people's houses. The broke the factories into workshops, which where highly inefficient. The Japanese believed this would make them resistant to bombing, but also scale well since they didn't have to centralize at single sites. (the exact opposite of Fordism). They were incorrect on both counts. And no, there are no documented records of people in Tokyo, Nagasaki and Hiroshima doing it - killing people tends to make them unable to engage in further violence (though it may encourage societies to further violence). but there are records in Okinawa, and in virtually every other sizable Japanese population engaging in violence. That even includes in Hawaii. See the Nihau incident.

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?
  - mmustapic 5y ago
    My question is: if Japan would have done that, would you consider it a war crime, or an atrocity? We can use phrases like "neutralise the enemy", but the reality is, hundreds of thousands of civilians were killed in order to defeat the enemy.
    - mc32 5y ago
      War is crime. It's preposterous to frame it as not a crime. Crimes will happen in war, whether a "good" war or war on the "bad" side. War is crime. There should be no confusion about that. In the end, would have the Japanese population suffered more with a conventional ground war vs firebombings or atomic bombings? I believe the consensus is stopping the war as quickly as possible spared the population the worst of it.
      - mmustapic 5y ago
        Then we agree, and that was my point, Allied bombings of mostly civilians is a crime.
        mc32 5y ago
        Not "Allied" but all bombings, including Axis bombings of purely civilians were a crime. However, you have to make a decision do you engage or sit back and watch the larger crime happen? In great wars like this the distinction between military and civilian is tenuous. Japan, like Germany, was thoroughly a martial economy. If you start a fire, don't complain later you got burnt.
InTheArena 5y ago
Just to be clear - the Japanese factories where in the cities. The Japanese pulled apart their factories and ran forges in people's backyards. Japanese civilians in battle zones routinely walked up to Allied soldiers with grenades to blow them up. They threw themselves off cliffs rather then surrender. We still have this concept that somehow the German and Japanese citizens where not involved in the actions of their governments. It's as much of a myth as the myth of a "Clean Wehrmacht"
- mmustapic 5y ago
  Of course you have factories in cities, where would they be? They needed to be close to the workers. And about civilians attacking Allied soldiers, do you have references for people in Tokyo, Hiroshima or Nagasaki doing it?
  - volkl48 5y ago
    Commenting on the latter point: The Battle of Okinawa seems like an example - Both willingly and by coercion, a large portion of the civilian population was sent into the battle to die with minimal training or equipment, including children. Is there some reason to think the populations of those cities would have acted differently if the front lines came to them at that time?
  - InTheArena 5y ago
    No. just to be clear: They literally disassembled their factories in many cases, and put equipment into people's houses. The broke the factories into workshops, which where highly inefficient. The Japanese believed this would make them resistant to bombing, but also scale well since they didn't have to centralize at single sites. (the exact opposite of Fordism). They were incorrect on both counts. And no, there are no documented records of people in Tokyo, Nagasaki and Hiroshima doing it - killing people tends to make them unable to engage in further violence (though it may encourage societies to further violence). but there are records in Okinawa, and in virtually every other sizable Japanese population engaging in violence. That even includes in Hawaii. See the Nihau incident.