5 ms·

What does it matter whether it's nukes or firebombs that leveled Tokyo and Dresden? It's terrible that a couple hundred thousand people died in the bombs, but

What does it matter whether it's nukes or firebombs that leveled Tokyo and Dresden? It's terrible that a couple hundred thousand people died in the bombs, but frankly, that's a drop in the bucket compared to the 85 MILLION people that died in WWII, and less terrible than the other couple of million that would have died in a conventional invasion. I always find it interesting how willing everyone is to judge the US for dropping the bombs, and how willing everyone was to completely forget the ~ 30M people japan murdered during their colonial expansion.

ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
We're specifically talking about the use of nuclear weapons in this instance. If we're going to start totting up non-nuclear killing of civilians, then the U.S. is looking at the killing of approx 56 million indigenous people for a similar desire to "own" land.
- wing-_-nuts 3y ago
  I was specifically talking about deaths during WWII. The US is partially responsible for the native american genocide, but I'd argue Britain and Spain are much more so (small pox and it's ilk did most of the killing at time of first contact) Hell if we're talking this sort of original sin, where does it end? Humans have been exterminating each other from the dawn of time.
  - ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
    > I was specifically talking about deaths during WWII. Okay. The rest of this thread is very much about nuclear weapons and their effects.
    - skeaker 3y ago
      No? This comment thread chain is specifically about the use of nuclear bombs in WWII. GP was replying to someone who brought that up.
flangola7 3y ago
Most people don't vilify the US, they defend it with tropes no longer supported by historians. Just as you are doing now.
- EvanAnderson 3y ago
  Could you point me in the direction of writing on this argument? I'd always heard that there was significant justification for using the atomic bombs on the basis of overall loss-of-life that was expected in an invasion of Japan. I've never read any detailed analysis of this claim and I've mostly taken it at face value.
  - ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
    > Could you point me in the direction of writing on this argument? https://www.historyonthenet.com/reasons-against-dropping-the-atomic-bomb https://www.historyonthenet.com/reasons-against-dropping-the...
  - mrguyorama 3y ago
    There is no honest assessment of the pacific conflict that doesn't end with millions of Japanese people dying. The Japanese did pearl harbor KNOWING that there would be no victory against the US if they decided to go to war. They gave themselves a chance of survival of about 2 years if the US committed. Japan could have taken their ball and gone home at ANY TIME between the bombing of pearl harbor and their eventual capitulation, but they didn't want to because that would be inconvenient for their grand ambitions. The US was not "conquering" Japan, and did not want any land of Japan's. By the end, Japan's army was acting on it's own, against the orders of the emperor. The reason millions of Japanese citizens died, as well as many American soldiers, is because a few leaders in the Japanese army did not want to give up the power they held. That is it.
NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
> 30M people japan murdered during their colonial expansion. "Japan" is just a label for an arbitrary grouping of people who live in close geographical proximity. It's incapable of murdering people. Some in that group murdered. Others did not murder. Were innocent. Do you think a nuclear fireball can discriminate between the two? > and less terrible than the other couple of million that would have died in a conventional invasion. I don't think any invasion were necessary. I think they were days or even hours away from unconditional surrender without that. I think that overtures had already been made, but these were willfully ignored. This is the only argument that supports the assertion that the nukes were war crimes. And if I am wrong in this premise, then I too concede the nukes were justified. But, if I'm right... it's not difficult to imagine why they were dropped. We'd already seen for ourselves what they could do at Trinity, but the Soviets didn't have a clue. It was a demonstration for their sake.
- Seanambers 3y ago
  Japan started something, USA finished it. All these arguments about how it wasn't necessary to drop the bombs seem to conveniently not mention the fanatic Japanese defense of Iwo Jima and Okinawa.

ndsipa_pomu 3y ago

We're specifically talking about the use of nuclear weapons in this instance. If we're going to start totting up non-nuclear killing of civilians, then the U.S. is looking at the killing of approx 56 million indigenous people for a similar desire to "own" land.

wing-_-nuts 3y ago
I was specifically talking about deaths during WWII. The US is partially responsible for the native american genocide, but I'd argue Britain and Spain are much more so (small pox and it's ilk did most of the killing at time of first contact) Hell if we're talking this sort of original sin, where does it end? Humans have been exterminating each other from the dawn of time.
- ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
  > I was specifically talking about deaths during WWII. Okay. The rest of this thread is very much about nuclear weapons and their effects.
  - skeaker 3y ago
    No? This comment thread chain is specifically about the use of nuclear bombs in WWII. GP was replying to someone who brought that up.

flangola7 3y ago

Most people don't vilify the US, they defend it with tropes no longer supported by historians. Just as you are doing now.

EvanAnderson 3y ago
Could you point me in the direction of writing on this argument? I'd always heard that there was significant justification for using the atomic bombs on the basis of overall loss-of-life that was expected in an invasion of Japan. I've never read any detailed analysis of this claim and I've mostly taken it at face value.
- ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
  > Could you point me in the direction of writing on this argument? https://www.historyonthenet.com/reasons-against-dropping-the-atomic-bomb https://www.historyonthenet.com/reasons-against-dropping-the...
- mrguyorama 3y ago
  There is no honest assessment of the pacific conflict that doesn't end with millions of Japanese people dying. The Japanese did pearl harbor KNOWING that there would be no victory against the US if they decided to go to war. They gave themselves a chance of survival of about 2 years if the US committed. Japan could have taken their ball and gone home at ANY TIME between the bombing of pearl harbor and their eventual capitulation, but they didn't want to because that would be inconvenient for their grand ambitions. The US was not "conquering" Japan, and did not want any land of Japan's. By the end, Japan's army was acting on it's own, against the orders of the emperor. The reason millions of Japanese citizens died, as well as many American soldiers, is because a few leaders in the Japanese army did not want to give up the power they held. That is it.

NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago

> 30M people japan murdered during their colonial expansion. "Japan" is just a label for an arbitrary grouping of people who live in close geographical proximity. It's incapable of murdering people. Some in that group murdered. Others did not murder. Were innocent. Do you think a nuclear fireball can discriminate between the two? > and less terrible than the other couple of million that would have died in a conventional invasion. I don't think any invasion were necessary. I think they were days or even hours away from unconditional surrender without that. I think that overtures had already been made, but these were willfully ignored. This is the only argument that supports the assertion that the nukes were war crimes. And if I am wrong in this premise, then I too concede the nukes were justified. But, if I'm right... it's not difficult to imagine why they were dropped. We'd already seen for ourselves what they could do at Trinity, but the Soviets didn't have a clue. It was a demonstration for their sake.

Seanambers 3y ago
Japan started something, USA finished it. All these arguments about how it wasn't necessary to drop the bombs seem to conveniently not mention the fanatic Japanese defense of Iwo Jima and Okinawa.