3 ms·

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 bee

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.

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.