It's a tragedy. Because lives, many of which that wouldn't support a war on the behest of their government, were lost that day. But I can't help feel it was necessary to prevent a bloodier ground war. For it's practical implications it was probably a wise decision. Perhaps there would have been a better way to display strength without targeting so many no military people. But I'm no expert on WW2 combat, so perhaps not.
I love reading arguments about the ethics of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I think it's a very nuanced and complex issue and for the US there was simply no good choice to make. Japan was refusing to surrender because of their national pride thus creating a possibility of a prolonged war. America wanted it done and so made the tough call to drop the nukes. However there are a lot of historians who apparently believe that had America waited a bit longer Japan may have surrendered shortly anyways. Also I think I've read that America didn't really understand the level of devastation and lingering issues that the nukes would cause.
Either way, it's a horrible thing and there are plenty of criticisms to be levied at America, but Japan holds a lot of the blame as well for their stubbornness.
It is clear many did not read the articles presented in OP.
1. Harry Truman was a racist who openly stated he hated Japanese people as early the 1920's . I would wager that this mentality played a factor in his decision to nuke. Can you imagine if Trump did something similar against a group he's racist towards?
2. Pearl Harbor is a joke of a "eye-for-an-eye" argument. 2500 military personnel are not innocent lives. The Japanese only targeted military targets, not civilian populations.
3. Two wrongs don't make a right. Japan may have committed heinous crimes of its own, but none compare to the level of dropping an experimental death weapon without understanding the repercussions for the future.
On the topic of of Nanjing, just like the so called Armenian genocide, actions committed are highly circumstantial and not clear cut. Death figures from this era are never accurate and can be twisted as needed for political purposes.
In case you are curious, the Allies during WW2 committed more than their fair share of war crimes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_war_crimes_during_World_War_II)
Of course you rarely hear about them as the winners write history. There's no one left to hold the US accountable.
4. Nukes were completely unnecessary as Japan was, by the end of the war, essentially and island nation cut-off from the rest of the world. The Soviets were rapidly invading Manchuria with plans for invading the Japanese mainland. The US had the naval advantage with a blockade pretty much cutting off Japan's life-line to food/energy imports.
They would be forced to surrender or have their people starve, which is a comparable effect to mass murder of innocents via nuke.
5. The US was playing realpolitik by initiating the cold war with an arms demonstration against Russia rather than genuinely expressing interest in not prolonging the war.
Everybody read them clearly. They also clearly saw the picture of Emperor Hirohito in your sig. Don't act like you're a neutral party here and don't have an agenda.
It's pretty obvious you're saying, "IGNORE EVERYTHING BAD JAPAN DID! I WANT US TO BE MAD AT AMERICA!!!"
Because saying "2500 military personnel death weren't "innocent" just because they're enlisted is just insane. Was every single person a badass infantryman with a massive kill count in WW2? Or were there non-combat staff on that massive base as well? And their families who lived on base? I guess janitors, mechanics, cooks, support staff, etc... were all active combatants who attacked Japan first to warrant a surprise attack.
Originally posted by TempAccount
It is clear many did not read the articles presented in OP.1. Harry Truman was a racist who openly stated he hated Japanese people as early the 1920's . I would wager that this mentality played a factor in his decision to nuke. Can you imagine if Trump did something similar against a group he's racist towards?
2. Pearl Harbor is a joke of a "eye-for-an-eye" argument. 2500 military personnel are not innocent lives. The Japanese only targeted military targets, not civilian populations.
3. Two wrongs don't make a right. Japan may have committed heinous crimes of its own, but none compare to the level of dropping an experimental death weapon without understanding the repercussions for the future.
On the topic of of Nanjing, just like the so called Armenian genocide, actions committed are highly circumstantial and not clear cut. Death figures from this era are never accurate and can be twisted as needed for political purposes.
In case you are curious, the Allies during WW2 committed more than their fair share of war crimes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_war_crimes_during_World_War_II)
Of course you rarely hear about them as the winners write history. There's no one left to hold the US accountable.4. Nukes were completely unnecessary as Japan was, by the end of the war, essentially and island nation cut-off from the rest of the world. The Soviets were rapidly invading Manchuria with plans for invading the Japanese mainland. The US had the naval advantage with a blockade pretty much cutting off Japan's life-line to food/energy imports.
They would be forced to surrender or have their people starve, which is a comparable effect to mass murder of innocents via nuke.
5. The US was playing realpolitik by initiating the cold war with an arms demonstration against Russia rather than genuinely expressing interest in not prolonging the war.
.........??? A joke?
Also, Japan started a War with America. In a global world war, the ends justify the means, if the end is a swift and quick ending minimizing the total number of lives lost imo. The sheer scale of it....trying to define it by some moral/ethical compass, or saying it was an act of racism? Lol.
Originally posted by TempAccount2. Pearl Harbor is a joke of a "eye-for-an-eye" argument. 2500 military personnel are not innocent lives. The Japanese only targeted military targets, not civilian populations.
3. Two wrongs don't make a right. Japan may have committed heinous crimes of its own, but none compare to the level of dropping an experimental death weapon without understanding the repercussions for the future
Tell that to the Chinese whom Japan tested chemical and biological weapons on killing 400,000 with cholera, bubonic plague and anthrax.
Then there was the testing of grenades and flamethrowers on chained up civilians. The vivisections without anaesthesia. The freezing and smashing of limbs to test frostbite. Putting people in high pressure chambers until they died. Spinning people in giant centrifuges until they died.
So yeah. Shut up.
Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Tell that to the Chinese whom Japan tested chemical and biological weapons on killing 400,000 with cholera, bubonic plague and anthrax.Then there was the testing of grenades and flamethrowers on chained up civilians. The vivisections without anaesthesia. The freezing and smashing of limbs to test frostbite. Putting people in high pressure chambers until they died. Spinning people in giant centrifuges until they died.
So yeah. Shut up.
So the point here is that America covered not one but two crimes against humanity?
Originally posted by Rage.Of.OlympusIt was the US that started the war with Japan by putting in place oil embargos. Japan had no choice but to invade the Philippines to sustain its country. Of course being that American Imperialism had the Philippines, they had to attack Pearl Harbor as a defensive measure.
.........??? A joke?Also, Japan started a War with America. In a global world war, the ends justify the means, if the end is a swift and quick ending minimizing the total number of lives lost imo. The sheer scale of it....trying to define it by some moral/ethical compass, or saying it was an act of racism? Lol.
Again, the war was already over by the time the US took over Okinawa. Soviets would have invaded the mainland if the US didn't; so they played realpolitik and dropped the nukes. Japan would have surrendered in time by simply keeping a naval blockade. The problem was that the cold war had begun and the US did not want to go to war with the Soviets over Japan. But yeah, killing 200,000 plus civilians definitely was a better outcome *sarcasm*.
Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Tell that to the Chinese whom Japan tested chemical and biological weapons on killing 400,000 with cholera, bubonic plague and anthrax.Then there was the testing of grenades and flamethrowers on chained up civilians. The vivisections without anaesthesia. The freezing and smashing of limbs to test frostbite. Putting people in high pressure chambers until they died. Spinning people in giant centrifuges until they died.
So yeah. Shut up.
Also let's not forget the Tuskegee syphilis experiment conducted by the good 'ol U S of A.
The point is, the US has always been just as awful. What they've done for centuries pales in comparison to the things Imperial Japan has done for only a relatively short period of time.
Originally posted by TempAccount
Evidence for unit 731 was actually swept under the rug by the United States in exchange for the findings from those experiments. They granted immunity to experimenters in exchange for info. Very shady of the USA. Clearly they didn't care about the suffering of victims.Also let's not forget the Tuskegee syphilis experiment conducted by the good 'ol U S of A.
The point is, the US has always been just as awful. What they've done for centuries pales in comparison to the things Imperial Japan has done for only a relatively short period of time.
So you knew about unit 731 when making your claim that Japan didn't drop experimental weapons and kill 200,000 civilians?
I suppose you're technically correct. They dropped experimental weapons and killed 400,000 civilians.
Originally posted by Putinbot1Plus WW2 was total war. A concept we struggle to understand today. The main difference between nuking a city and carpet bombing a city (with regard to civilian deaths) is how fast the destruction occurs.
My uncle died in his 50's in 1978 because of the way he was treated as a POW by Japan. I have Japanese friends, it's the past, long ago. Dropping the bombs saved allied lives, and in a war which had gone on too long and seen too many allies die, it needed to happen.