5 ms·

Speaking as a historian, The atomic bombs being horrible weapons that at the time where strategically justified is the consensus view among non-populist histori

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.
  - trasz 5y ago
    I generally agree, but: how is mass killing civilians, like in this case, "non-genocidal"?
    - ksdale 5y ago
      Good question! Genocide is not just another word for mass-murder. It is defined as killing with the intention to destroy the targeted ethnic group/culture/religion completely. That certainly wasn't the American plan anywhere during WW2. Germany's actions were obviously genocidal, and Japan's actions in China arguably were as well.
      - ejb999 5y ago
        >>and Japan's actions in China arguably were as well. Arguably? not sure there is anything 'arguably' about Japan's intentions and actions in China.
        ksdale 5y ago
        Haha yeah, I was reluctant just because I don't personally know much of that particular history and it was hard to imagine that the Japanese intended to commit genocide against all of China, but I agree that genocide is fair classification of their actions.
- stickfigure 5y ago
  You repeat this same line many times in this thread, every time without evidence. Nobody has to convince you of anything. But if you want to be taken seriously in this forum, you have to convince us. You don't appear to be trying.

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.
- trasz 5y ago
  I generally agree, but: how is mass killing civilians, like in this case, "non-genocidal"?
  - ksdale 5y ago
    Good question! Genocide is not just another word for mass-murder. It is defined as killing with the intention to destroy the targeted ethnic group/culture/religion completely. That certainly wasn't the American plan anywhere during WW2. Germany's actions were obviously genocidal, and Japan's actions in China arguably were as well.
    - ejb999 5y ago
      >>and Japan's actions in China arguably were as well. Arguably? not sure there is anything 'arguably' about Japan's intentions and actions in China.
      - ksdale 5y ago
        Haha yeah, I was reluctant just because I don't personally know much of that particular history and it was hard to imagine that the Japanese intended to commit genocide against all of China, but I agree that genocide is fair classification of their actions.
stickfigure 5y ago
You repeat this same line many times in this thread, every time without evidence. Nobody has to convince you of anything. But if you want to be taken seriously in this forum, you have to convince us. You don't appear to be trying.