3 ms·

Yeah, I only meant the atomic bombs, which was quite clearly "deliberate murder of noncombatants outside of a combat situation" as far as I can tell. I mean, i

Yeah, I only meant the atomic bombs, which was quite clearly "deliberate murder of noncombatants outside of a combat situation" as far as I can tell. I mean, it was essentially, "We have unlimited capacity to randomly murder 100,000 of your civilians at once, we've demonstrated it twice now, so submit to our authority." Well, they did.

brazzy 13y ago
Well, what you can tell is wrong. The atomic bombs were horrific in their destructions and death toll, but not really any more than the conventional bombings. Even the Japanese didn't think much of Hiroshima based on that alone (they had gotten used to cities getting wiped out) and it took Nagasaki to make clear that this was really a game-changer.
- acjacobson 13y ago
  Here's an interesting article that stipulates Nagasaki really didn't add anything to the equation (and to your original point the Japanese were already used to this) - http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/05/29/the_bomb_didnt_beat_japan_nuclear_world_war_ii http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/05/29/the_bomb_di...
joyeuse6701 13y ago
Dresden Bombings, Bombing of London, Tokyo Fire Bombings, Rape of Nanjing, take your pick, WWII was Total War in the closest sense of the Clausewitzian term, it was about breaking the will of a government (sometimes) and definitely it's people. The practice of protecting civilians of a foreign nation is really a western one rooted in chivalric code of conduct and to be fair, wasn't expected practice until fairly recently.
Spooky23 13y ago
Under the military doctrine of the day, the enemy's means of production were legitimate targets. That included industry, transit points, and other things associated with urban areas. The Japanese adopted a similar strategy, especially in China. FYI I'm not personally advocating that obliterating cities is ok. I find it morally repugnant. I'm Just recounting the generally accepted standard of the time.

brazzy 13y ago

Well, what you can tell is wrong. The atomic bombs were horrific in their destructions and death toll, but not really any more than the conventional bombings. Even the Japanese didn't think much of Hiroshima based on that alone (they had gotten used to cities getting wiped out) and it took Nagasaki to make clear that this was really a game-changer.

acjacobson 13y ago
Here's an interesting article that stipulates Nagasaki really didn't add anything to the equation (and to your original point the Japanese were already used to this) - http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/05/29/the_bomb_didnt_beat_japan_nuclear_world_war_ii http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/05/29/the_bomb_di...

joyeuse6701 13y ago

Dresden Bombings, Bombing of London, Tokyo Fire Bombings, Rape of Nanjing, take your pick, WWII was Total War in the closest sense of the Clausewitzian term, it was about breaking the will of a government (sometimes) and definitely it's people. The practice of protecting civilians of a foreign nation is really a western one rooted in chivalric code of conduct and to be fair, wasn't expected practice until fairly recently.

Spooky23 13y ago

Under the military doctrine of the day, the enemy's means of production were legitimate targets. That included industry, transit points, and other things associated with urban areas. The Japanese adopted a similar strategy, especially in China. FYI I'm not personally advocating that obliterating cities is ok. I find it morally repugnant. I'm Just recounting the generally accepted standard of the time.