5 ms·

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

by 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.
  - panick21_ 5y ago
    > who is "us"? People in the comment section of this forum where we are having an argument about this situation. > 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. Seems like the simple way out. > is only popular in the US Its actually popular with everybody who has studied WW2 in detail. I'm European and I watch content by other Europeans who agree with the argument. In terms of popular opinion, I don't think most nations think about it much at all. > it exists mostly to enable them to retain their sense of being the good guys I disagree. You can be the good guy without arguing that it was the better option for Japan. > Other countries, unburdened by the necessity of always making the US look like the good guys, don't favor this particular narrative. Its a simple matter of military strategy. Anybody that has studied military history can engaged in those arguments. Ending a war is difficult, and threw-out history we see different how they can end. Looking at the strategic options at the time and doing the best you can at evaluating the potential casualties will lead you to the conclusion that you don't seem to like. If you disagree with that assessment, then you have to make an argument for an alternative strategy that would have saved more people. Argument like that could potentially be made. One might argue for example that going away from unconditional surrender, and trying to make some kind of deal where Japan could keep Korea or something like that could have been made. But again, you actually have to make that argument if you want to be the a moral critic.
    - the_af 5y ago
      "It's a simple matter", "seems like the simple way out". Well, if you have it all figured out, why engage with me in conversation? > Its actually popular with everybody who has studied WW2 in detail This is false, and an empty assertion. So the people who disagree with you haven't studied WW2 in detail? A variant of the "all non-populist historians agree that [...]".
      - theworld22 5y ago
        In Australia, for undergraduate students studying history, this is the most commonly assigned essay topic in World War 2 studies. Most of the students go into it thinking like you. Nearly all of them change their mind once they look more deeply at the evidence. The atomic bombings are a classic case where the popular assumed narrative differs significantly from the facts. And that’s the reason this is assigned as an essay topic. The idea is to sober up the students a little bit and help them understand that their neat worldviews (USA bad!) are not reflected in the messy reality.
        the_af 5y ago
        Thanks for your reply. One thing I want to point out, because I saw someone else also ask me this: > [...] help them understand that their neat worldviews (USA bad!) I don't know about Australian students, but at least I am not saying "USA bad". I'm describing a particular narrative about the atomic bombings as being fueled by the necessity of Americans to sustain their perception of always being the good guys. For some reason some people read this and conclude I believe the US were the bad guys. I obviously believe the atomic bombings were a war crime; but more generally, I do not believe the US were the bad guys in WW2. All moral grays and downright immoral actions committed aside, the US was on the good side of that war, and Japan on the bad side. I hope that clears up that part of my position.
      - panick21_ 5y ago
        > Well, if you have it all figured out, why engage with me in conversation? I don't have it figured out. What I am trying to do is explain your policy. I'm trying to get you to commit to an actual viable policy rather then doing moral grandstanding. > This is false, and an empty assertion. So the people who disagree with you haven't studied WW2 in detail? A variant of the "all non-populist historians agree that [...]". It reflects my own experience with studying the topic, in media, books, podcast, forums and so on. And generally the people who disagree refuse to make detailed historical argument or proposing alternative solutions and just relay on moral grandstanding.
- tdeck 5y ago
  The US had already formed an agreement with Stalin that the USSR would invade Manchuria (despite it's non-aggressin pact with Japan). This plan involved the USSR gaining control of territory they formerly lost to Japan during the Russo-Japanese war. That was the original US plan to end the war, not a ground invasion. When Truman saw the trinity test he decided that he could win the war using nukes without letting the soviets gain anything. Hence the scramble to drop them. Or they could have offered Japan a conditional surrender rather than insisting on an "unconditional" one and then letting them keep their emporer anyway. Japan was already looking desperately for ways to surrender.
  - InTheArena 5y ago
    This is incorrect on a number of fronts: 1) The Japanese surrender was unconditional. The emperor's positions as very much at Douglas Macarthurs will. (And this was made clear before the surrender). 2) There was no move to cut the soviets out. Stalin immediately became paranoid (as he often did) and moved up his time frame once it became clear (before Trinity) that the USA would have the bomb soon. 3) Truman never decided any such thing - in fact, he announced ("with glee" according to the reporters present) that Stalin had entered the war. This narrative comes from Hasegawa's book, and it's completely incorrect.
  - mcguire 5y ago
    The conditions the Japanese Supreme Council was looking so desperately for were: 1. The form of the Japanese government remains unchanged. (I.e. the Emperor is guaranteed to remain emperor. This was not agreed to, but it did work out that way.) 2. Japan was not to be occupied. 3. Japan would be responsible for demobilizing its own forces. 4. Japan would be responsible for investigations and trials of war crimes. You comfortable with those?
    - tdeck 5y ago
      Clearly there's a lot of depth here to exolore and I can admit to only a casual interest in the topic, but my understanding is that there were different factions within the Japanese leadership who were comfortable with different sets of conditions, and only #1 was a sticking point for everyone. However, let's assume this is the only deal Japanese leaders would have accepted. Our discomfort about these conditions should be weighed against the discomfort of killing hundreds of thousands of civilians in bombing raids and dropping nuclear bombs on two cities. It's kind of hard to argue, for example, that an overriding concern about war crimes is why you'd have to bomb civilians.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
drran 5y ago
Aggressor want to occupy as much land and resources as possible and kill as much opposition as possible. Defender want to save people lives and protect status quo. > 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". Yep.

by the_af 5y ago

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.
- panick21_ 5y ago
  > who is "us"? People in the comment section of this forum where we are having an argument about this situation. > 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. Seems like the simple way out. > is only popular in the US Its actually popular with everybody who has studied WW2 in detail. I'm European and I watch content by other Europeans who agree with the argument. In terms of popular opinion, I don't think most nations think about it much at all. > it exists mostly to enable them to retain their sense of being the good guys I disagree. You can be the good guy without arguing that it was the better option for Japan. > Other countries, unburdened by the necessity of always making the US look like the good guys, don't favor this particular narrative. Its a simple matter of military strategy. Anybody that has studied military history can engaged in those arguments. Ending a war is difficult, and threw-out history we see different how they can end. Looking at the strategic options at the time and doing the best you can at evaluating the potential casualties will lead you to the conclusion that you don't seem to like. If you disagree with that assessment, then you have to make an argument for an alternative strategy that would have saved more people. Argument like that could potentially be made. One might argue for example that going away from unconditional surrender, and trying to make some kind of deal where Japan could keep Korea or something like that could have been made. But again, you actually have to make that argument if you want to be the a moral critic.
  - the_af 5y ago
    "It's a simple matter", "seems like the simple way out". Well, if you have it all figured out, why engage with me in conversation? > Its actually popular with everybody who has studied WW2 in detail This is false, and an empty assertion. So the people who disagree with you haven't studied WW2 in detail? A variant of the "all non-populist historians agree that [...]".
    - theworld22 5y ago
      In Australia, for undergraduate students studying history, this is the most commonly assigned essay topic in World War 2 studies. Most of the students go into it thinking like you. Nearly all of them change their mind once they look more deeply at the evidence. The atomic bombings are a classic case where the popular assumed narrative differs significantly from the facts. And that’s the reason this is assigned as an essay topic. The idea is to sober up the students a little bit and help them understand that their neat worldviews (USA bad!) are not reflected in the messy reality.
      - the_af 5y ago
        Thanks for your reply. One thing I want to point out, because I saw someone else also ask me this: > [...] help them understand that their neat worldviews (USA bad!) I don't know about Australian students, but at least I am not saying "USA bad". I'm describing a particular narrative about the atomic bombings as being fueled by the necessity of Americans to sustain their perception of always being the good guys. For some reason some people read this and conclude I believe the US were the bad guys. I obviously believe the atomic bombings were a war crime; but more generally, I do not believe the US were the bad guys in WW2. All moral grays and downright immoral actions committed aside, the US was on the good side of that war, and Japan on the bad side. I hope that clears up that part of my position.
    - panick21_ 5y ago
      > Well, if you have it all figured out, why engage with me in conversation? I don't have it figured out. What I am trying to do is explain your policy. I'm trying to get you to commit to an actual viable policy rather then doing moral grandstanding. > This is false, and an empty assertion. So the people who disagree with you haven't studied WW2 in detail? A variant of the "all non-populist historians agree that [...]". It reflects my own experience with studying the topic, in media, books, podcast, forums and so on. And generally the people who disagree refuse to make detailed historical argument or proposing alternative solutions and just relay on moral grandstanding.
tdeck 5y ago
The US had already formed an agreement with Stalin that the USSR would invade Manchuria (despite it's non-aggressin pact with Japan). This plan involved the USSR gaining control of territory they formerly lost to Japan during the Russo-Japanese war. That was the original US plan to end the war, not a ground invasion. When Truman saw the trinity test he decided that he could win the war using nukes without letting the soviets gain anything. Hence the scramble to drop them. Or they could have offered Japan a conditional surrender rather than insisting on an "unconditional" one and then letting them keep their emporer anyway. Japan was already looking desperately for ways to surrender.
- InTheArena 5y ago
  This is incorrect on a number of fronts: 1) The Japanese surrender was unconditional. The emperor's positions as very much at Douglas Macarthurs will. (And this was made clear before the surrender). 2) There was no move to cut the soviets out. Stalin immediately became paranoid (as he often did) and moved up his time frame once it became clear (before Trinity) that the USA would have the bomb soon. 3) Truman never decided any such thing - in fact, he announced ("with glee" according to the reporters present) that Stalin had entered the war. This narrative comes from Hasegawa's book, and it's completely incorrect.
- mcguire 5y ago
  The conditions the Japanese Supreme Council was looking so desperately for were: 1. The form of the Japanese government remains unchanged. (I.e. the Emperor is guaranteed to remain emperor. This was not agreed to, but it did work out that way.) 2. Japan was not to be occupied. 3. Japan would be responsible for demobilizing its own forces. 4. Japan would be responsible for investigations and trials of war crimes. You comfortable with those?
  - tdeck 5y ago
    Clearly there's a lot of depth here to exolore and I can admit to only a casual interest in the topic, but my understanding is that there were different factions within the Japanese leadership who were comfortable with different sets of conditions, and only #1 was a sticking point for everyone. However, let's assume this is the only deal Japanese leaders would have accepted. Our discomfort about these conditions should be weighed against the discomfort of killing hundreds of thousands of civilians in bombing raids and dropping nuclear bombs on two cities. It's kind of hard to argue, for example, that an overriding concern about war crimes is why you'd have to bomb civilians.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

drran 5y ago

Aggressor want to occupy as much land and resources as possible and kill as much opposition as possible. Defender want to save people lives and protect status quo. > 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". Yep.