5 ms·
Being an American, and having been through American public schools, I cling to the belief that we were justified, that it was the humane thing to do, that a con
by PostOnce 17y ago
Being an American, and having been through American public schools, I cling to the belief that we were justified, that it was the humane thing to do, that a conflict with the Japanese on land would have resulted in a greater loss of life, that it was a swift end to Japan's malevolent ambitions in Asia, and that while we did something bad, they did worse in Nanjing. It's what they told me in school.
My wife and I argue about it; her being from New Zealand, where there is a greater population of Japanese immigrants, and where they abhor Nuclear technology (nuclear ships are not allowed in kiwi ports.) has given her a different perspective.
What was the alternative?
Relatedly, why do we never talk about firebombing? That's a pretty terrible fate too, and we all did it. Why do they not teach us of our own villainy in school, so we can learn not to revisit it? All I ever heard in school was what we did right and what the Germans did wrong. There was passing mention of Hiroshima, but that was the extent of our wrong. They never told me about our internment of the Japanese.
- yummyfajitas 17y agoFirebombing doesn't carry with it the "fear of the unknown" factor that nukes do. I can build myself a firebomb if I want to, what's scary about that? But nukes, that requires, like, science and einstein and stuff. Similarly, no one fears "natural" agriculture ("fertilize with cow shit? No way that could spread disease or cause pollution") but everyone is afraid of GMO and chemical agriculture.
- kingkawn 17y agoI'm not sure its fear of the unknown as much as fear of the ease. A split second decision can result in the death of humanity.
- forinti 17y agoI'm sure a demonstration could have been arranged.
- cema 17y agoIt is not necessarily a "humane" thing to do (kind of difficult to discuss weapons of mass destruction in these terms) but it may have been a right thing to do. In hindsight, perhaps a less civilian target would be more proper; in a way, more "humane". I grew up in the Soviet Union which was thick with propaganda, of course. On the topic of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they claimed that the US used it simply to show the world and especially the USSR who the boss is. Even now many people in Russia think so (if "think" is the word). You say you went through American public schools; my understanding is that, first, not all teachers force students to adhere to a specific line of thought; second, that many, perhaps a majority of, teachers do not approve of the bombings; and third, that graduates (above a certain level; say, those who go to college) are able to separate what they read in textbooks from their own thoughts. Am I correct here, or is it more of a wishful thinking?
- jimbokun 17y agoIt's just really hard pinning down "which atrocities are worse" in a conflict the scale of World War II. "Estimates of total dead range from 50 million to over 70 million." sayeth Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties There is a lot of horror to go around, endured and attributable to pretty much every party in the war. I still believe that the U.S. and it's allies were morally superior to Germany, Japan and the Axis. But it is certainly a question of degree when there is that much killing involved, and impossible to say that the U.S. was without fault in any of its decisions.
- philwelch 17y agoI still believe that the U.S. and it's allies were morally superior to Germany, Japan and the Axis But only just, and probably not when you consider the Soviet Union.
- forinti 17y agoAnd if you do not consider the fact that the retribution for WWI crippled Germany's economy and paved the way for Hitler's rise. And if you ignore the fact that Germany was (in part, to be honest) led to WWI because the British sabotaged their mercantile efforts. To sum it up: there are no good guys.
- aplusbi 17y agoWhat was the alternative? Perhaps a military target. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen because of the massive civilian casualties. Full disclosure - My dad is Japanese and lived through the war.
- dangoldin 17y agoI had to write an essay back in HS on this topic. My conclusion was that the first bomb was warranted but not the second. A big reason for dropping the bomb(s) was to win the war faster in order to slow down the Soviet advance. In addition, the US wanted to send signals to the Soviet Union.