It’s time to end the myth that the US needed to drop atomic bombs to end World War II : history

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 months ago (1 children)

This article references the existence of lots of alternatives for ending the war but doesn't identify any of them. Anyone know what other methods or paths specifically would have led to the war ending in just a few weeks and without an invasion of Japan, as mentioned in the article? Genuinely curious, not arguing the claim.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 2 months ago

The Japanese were already negotiating to end the war. The sticking point was over the U.S. demand for unconditional surrender vs. the Japanese insistence on preserving their emperor in some form. The eventual surrender did keep the emperor, so the atomic bombs didn't impact that issue.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Imperial Japan was as bad as Nazi Germany.

They were holding literally millions of people in slavery and had used biological warfare.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comfort_women

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731

The Japanese high command knew that they'd lost the war after Midway, but kept fighting for 'reasons.'

Every day the war kept going, innocent people in the Japanese Empire were being raped and killed. If any of them had been given a chance to vote on the matter, they certainly would have okayed the bombing.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Oh you want to get I to a wikipedia battle?

Okay, while Japan and Germany were holding people in slavery and used for experimentation, the allies were doing the exact same thing.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment_of_Japanese_Americans

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_War_II_prisoner-of-war_camps_in_Canada

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutchinson_Internment_Camp

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentation_in_the_United_States

The US High Command knew they had won the war and were eager to drop atomic bombs on cities to show the Soviet Union they had a working bomb and to study the real world effects of a nuclear bomb being dropped on a city. It was as much science as terrorism.

[+] [email protected] -8 points 2 months ago (1 children)

So, you admit that the Japanese were enslaving and raping millions, and that stopped after the bombs fell.

Seems we agree on the most basic point.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Curious, are you claiming that except the tens of thousands of civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki the bombs also vaporised every single Japanese war criminal in every point of China, Korea etc?
Or are you less literal, just again with no further arguments other than "it did because it did" backpedaling to the original claim OP is challenging?

[–] [email protected] -4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Here's a little thought experiment.

Pretend you are a Korean/Vietnamese/Chinese et al victim of the Japanese invasion.

You've had your home destroyed; your family members killed and maimed; seen thousands of women raped. The atrocities are ongoing, and every day you live in fear that you or someone you love will be the next one to die.

Harry Truman comes to you and asks how long should he wait for the Japanese to surrender.

How many months would you give the Japanese to make up their minds? Remember that the rapes and murders aren't going to stop while they decide.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

So you are just backpedaling and trying the other path. You got enough reading and listening posted by other people but you are still trying? How about you answer with actual argument instead of cracker concern trolling and emotional blackmail? But to entertain you for a second, i would told Truman to fuck off and accept their original surrender proposition. I would also stab him, maybe it would save millions of people, mostly in Korea.
Finally, your moral asspull attempt is made even further invalid by the fact that Japan surrendered nearly a month after bombs that's a month of further "killing my loved ones" in which America did not dropped even more atom bombs? Why if those were what forced japan to "immediately" stop killing?

[–] [email protected] -4 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I would also stab him, maybe it would save millions of people,

So, it's okay for you to kill in the name of protecting lives, but other people shouldn't?

That's the funniest thing I've read all day.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago

The US wouldn't kill in the name of protecting Asian lives because the US didn't care about Asian lives. They literally had Japanese American children in concentration camps at the time. Half a decade later they'd commit to a massive genocidal war in Korea, and before that they'd do plenty of mass killings of peaceful protestors in Korea.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Still no argument, just clowning and laughing at yourself, cracker.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

Thing is that Japan was already trying to surrender, and the US was well aware of the fact before the decision to drop the bombs was made. The only purpose of this crime against humanity was to show USSR what level of depravity the US regime was capable of.

https://web.archive.org/web/20220404122536/https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/15427-magic-diplomatic-summary-war-department-office

There's a whole book written on the subject by Tsuyoshi Hasegawa called Racing the Enemy: Stalin, Truman, and the Surrender of Japan. The fact that Japanese regime committed atrocities in no way justifies the atrocities committed by the US regime. Of course, I realize the concept that two wrongs don't make a right might be too complex of an idea for the liberal mind to comprehend.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

You've marred your argument by devolving into mud-slinging.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

So, they were thinking about maybe starting the process.

Meanwhile, the war crimes were ongoing.

Let's do a little thought experiment.

Pretend you're a Burmese, Korean, Chinese, or Vietnamese citizen. You've seen your friends and family killed; had your home town devastated; watched thousands of women raped. Not only had you already seen it, but it was an ongoing thing. How many months would you have given the Japanese High Command to mull the situation?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Incredible that you'd use countries that US promptly invaded after the war and killed countless civilians in, where people are still dealing with effects of chemicals like agent orange and unexploded ordinance, to make a case that US dropped nuclear weapons on Japanese civilians as a humanitarian action. 🤡

[–] [email protected] -4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Pretend you’re a Burmese, Korean, Chinese, or Vietnamese citizen. You’ve seen your friends and family killed; had your home town devastated; watched thousands of women raped. Not only had you already seen it, but it was an ongoing thing. How many months would you have given the Japanese High Command to mull the situation?

Funny how you can't actually answer the question.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I did answer your "question". The US never gave a shit about the lives of people in any of these countries, and the racists running the US regime see them as subhuman. US did not drop the bombs to help these people. What part of that are you still struggling to understand?

[–] [email protected] -4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I must have missed the answer.

Just give me a number. How many months would you, a Burmese victim of the invasion, let the Japanese go on killing and raping?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

What part of US did not care about how many civilians would die are you having trouble understanding. Go read up on what US proceeded to do to the civilians in Burma, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, and other countries in Asia right after the war. Ask yourself what Burmese victim of the invasion, let the US go on killing and raping?

[–] [email protected] -4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Sounds like you're saying that the Japanese raping and killing was justified because of the American killings that occured later.

Because I'm still not seeing an actual number.

I'll posit my thought experiment one more time.

It's August 1945. You're a Burmese who escaped and made it to Washington. Harry S. Truman confides in you that he has a terrible weapon that will wipe out an entire city in an instant. He offers you the option. Drop the bomb and end the war instantly, or let the raping and killing go on while the Japanese dither about surrender. You can't see into the future. How many months do you tell Harry to let the atrocities go on.

I just want to see one number.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The fact that you lack cognitive capacity to understand the concept of two wrongs don't make a right is really phenomenal!

[–] [email protected] -3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

So, explain why it would be "right" to let the Japanese Empire continue to kill and rape civilians when there was a way to stop it.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago

I already did in several different ways, but it's clear that you lack the mental facilities to understand the explanation.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

Dan Carlin has a great episode on the historical context behind the decision and how it was really the culmination of a series of - in my opinion - bad calls with regards to the acceptability of collateral damage in bombing by the US.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Tpoasiwid: what happened the day after the bombs fell?

🤷

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago

The bombs didn't fall on the same date?

[+] [email protected] -8 points 2 months ago (2 children)

If you're TRULY interested in a deep and nuanced take on this topic, here's a fantastic podcast on the topic that is MANY hours long. Personally, I don't see any better alternatives to the bombs to end the war quickly or to spare lives. And, as Dan Carlin explains, the Japanese have only themselves to blame for the perceptions of their people about Americans and the perspectives of Americans about them.

https://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-62-supernova-in-the-east-i/

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Personally, I don’t see any better alternatives to the bombs to end the war quickly or to spare lives.

That puts you at odds with Curtis LeMay, who wanted to drop every bomb ever made. Even he said the atomic bombings weren't necessary.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I've listened to that podcast and Carlin's previous one about the decision to drop the bomb. I don't really recall Carlin saying that. Tbf Supernova in the East was massive so it's possible I don't remember the section you're talking about.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

This is how I remember his series on the Japanese involvement in WWII:

Carlin talked about the Japanese military leaving gruesome "messages" (through terribly mutilated corpses of American soldier) to Americans, which in turn led Americans to take fewer POWs and also ramp up the violence. Additionally, this led to fewer Americans units who may have otherwise surrendered as POWs to continue fighting even if it meant they would all die; they were terrified to be captured. The Japanese military also knew what effect this must have on the Americans, and as a result would refuse to surrender in fear of similar treatment / reprisal.

Japanese soldiers would report this back home to their families. Combined with the propaganda civilians received from their government and the stories from the front, many people believed that when the Americans landed in Japan, that the soldiers would eat their children. It was because of this sentiment it was believed that the Japanese populace would never surrender, and the fighting on the Japanese islands would require killing far more people as the invasion progressed northward.

It is to be noted I am not a historian, and I'm just someone who listened to a really long podcast a couple years ago. He's more of an "historian" than I am, and he seemed pretty credible to me. I have done no other reading or research on the topic, and I probably shouldn't have commented here to begin with.

History