3 ms·

Where is it disputed? I would like to be informed on this. Each time I dig into this, both sides at the time believed millions more would die in resistance of

by _8j50 4y ago

Where is it disputed? I would like to be informed on this. Each time I dig into this, both sides at the time believed millions more would die in resistance of a US invasion. The only way less people will die from not nuking them is if the US was to accept an armistice and avoid invading mainland and hope ina few decades the japanese empire will not go at it again. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall# https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall# > While Japan no longer had a realistic prospect of winning the war, Japan's leaders believed they could make the cost of invading and occupying the Home Islands too high for the Allies to accept, which would lead to some sort of armistice rather than total defeat. The Japanese plan for defeating the invasion was called Operation Ketsugō (決号作戦, ketsugō sakusen) ("Operation Codename Decisive"). The Japanese planned to commit the entire population of Japan to resisting the invasion, and from June 1945 onward, a propaganda campaign calling for "The Glorious Death of One Hundred Million" commenced.[48] The main message of "The Glorious Death of One Hundred Million" campaign was that it was "glorious to die for the holy emperor of Japan, and every Japanese man, woman, and child should die for the Emperor when the Allies arrived".[48] While this was not realistic, both American and Japanese officers at the time predicted a Japanese death toll in the millions

hef19898 4y ago
The damage to Tokio was as big as what the nukes did, tye Japanese didn't surrender. Around the time the nukes dropped the USSR finally declared war on Japan, surrendering to the Western Allies, foremost the US, was much more preferable than ending up split in different occupation zones.
- _8j50 4y ago
  They are not a west european country. They don't surrender and accept the shame of defeat to avoid mass casualty. Their plan was to sacrifice as many civilians as possible to prevent an invsion of the mainland. So long as it meant they could resist invasion in a meaningful way they would resist. Millions more would habe died and Japan would be split in two like korea.
  - hef19898 4y ago
    Especially since their Surai honor would have meant they use Katanas? Don't try to justify civilian death, strategic bombing was considered even by the RAF and UAAF a war crime in 1942, with some made up thing based in a fantasy understanding of the enemy.
    - _8j50 4y ago
      Can you back up that claim about strategic bombing being a war crime? Also, do you understand that a war crime only applies between signatories of a treaty and that a nation that is not part of that a sovreign nation has no obligation to follow any authority or rule outside of itself else it wouldn't be a sovreign nation? Civilian deaths are justified when war is justified. There is no such thing as a clean war or a "genteleman's war" as the brits call it. The idea of rules in war is a western european invention. Outside of that war historically meant murder, rape and pillaging by the victor. Are you familiar with the nanjing massacare by the Japnese? That's their idea of war, ripping out babies with a bayonet from pregnant women and making people beg for death as they force them to rape their own family members and hunt them like animals. The very fact that you think actions can be unjust or just after you started waging war shows you are only looking at it from a western/modern perspective. This is why afghanistan and vietnam were lost by the US. As a democracy the people's naive opinion of war was the ultimate cause of defeat. Even genocide is a modern post worldwar2 invention. Trough most of human history if the other guys won there is a chance they will kill all your people if they don't keep them for raping and enslavement. That is why when your guys get a chance they won't even consider the concept of rules only victory. War itself is a horrible and unjustifiable thing, it does not suddenly become just and fair because a you are killing a conscripted child with a uniform. Soldiers are human and civilians are participants in war by the mere fact that their economic output us being used to support the military by way of taxation. What is justifiable is avoiding war to begin with and changing your own governmenr even at the cost of a civil war so that it never becomes the agressor in war (coughiraq*cough). The fact is you need one side to declare war before the other and regardless of who wins it is that first side that is responsible for the entire unjust and cruel outcome of a war. And as a sovreign nation, the people are responsible for the government they pay taxes to and tolerate when it declares war first on another country.

by _8j50 4y ago

hef19898 4y ago

The damage to Tokio was as big as what the nukes did, tye Japanese didn't surrender. Around the time the nukes dropped the USSR finally declared war on Japan, surrendering to the Western Allies, foremost the US, was much more preferable than ending up split in different occupation zones.

_8j50 4y ago
They are not a west european country. They don't surrender and accept the shame of defeat to avoid mass casualty. Their plan was to sacrifice as many civilians as possible to prevent an invsion of the mainland. So long as it meant they could resist invasion in a meaningful way they would resist. Millions more would habe died and Japan would be split in two like korea.
- hef19898 4y ago
  Especially since their Surai honor would have meant they use Katanas? Don't try to justify civilian death, strategic bombing was considered even by the RAF and UAAF a war crime in 1942, with some made up thing based in a fantasy understanding of the enemy.
  - _8j50 4y ago
    Can you back up that claim about strategic bombing being a war crime? Also, do you understand that a war crime only applies between signatories of a treaty and that a nation that is not part of that a sovreign nation has no obligation to follow any authority or rule outside of itself else it wouldn't be a sovreign nation? Civilian deaths are justified when war is justified. There is no such thing as a clean war or a "genteleman's war" as the brits call it. The idea of rules in war is a western european invention. Outside of that war historically meant murder, rape and pillaging by the victor. Are you familiar with the nanjing massacare by the Japnese? That's their idea of war, ripping out babies with a bayonet from pregnant women and making people beg for death as they force them to rape their own family members and hunt them like animals. The very fact that you think actions can be unjust or just after you started waging war shows you are only looking at it from a western/modern perspective. This is why afghanistan and vietnam were lost by the US. As a democracy the people's naive opinion of war was the ultimate cause of defeat. Even genocide is a modern post worldwar2 invention. Trough most of human history if the other guys won there is a chance they will kill all your people if they don't keep them for raping and enslavement. That is why when your guys get a chance they won't even consider the concept of rules only victory. War itself is a horrible and unjustifiable thing, it does not suddenly become just and fair because a you are killing a conscripted child with a uniform. Soldiers are human and civilians are participants in war by the mere fact that their economic output us being used to support the military by way of taxation. What is justifiable is avoiding war to begin with and changing your own governmenr even at the cost of a civil war so that it never becomes the agressor in war (coughiraq*cough). The fact is you need one side to declare war before the other and regardless of who wins it is that first side that is responsible for the entire unjust and cruel outcome of a war. And as a sovreign nation, the people are responsible for the government they pay taxes to and tolerate when it declares war first on another country.