Not a new revelation, but the article pulls from good sources and it’s nice to see this myth repudiated in a mainstream outlet.
Shauns video “dropping the bomb” does a good job at going over this as well, if ya’ve got 2 hours.
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.
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.
Vaporizing 200,000 civilians over semantics
JK it was to show the Soviets we had the bomb and were willing to use it
Both completely deranged sentiments
The Western Allies slowed their approach into Germany because it was agreed between them and the Soviet Union on what the occupation zones should have been prior to the invasion.
In a humanitarian gesture, should the Western Allies have accepted a German surrender in which Germany surrendered only on the condition that they would be occupied by the Americans?
Yes? What kind of stupid question is that
Do you mean like from a moral perspective or from a self interest perspective? A surrender to the west and solely western occupation would not have been accepted by the soviets, with good reason.
Not to mention the fact that it would have been primarily soviets doing the land invasion, and the US didn’t want to get beaten to the punch twice in a row.
That whole narrative smacks of racism and cowardice
"We had to kill 200k civilians or else we would have had to invade the mainland and risk the lives of our soldiers, who are expected to risk their lives. White lives matter. Anyway they were fanatical, the women would have hurled themselves off of cliffs, dashed their babies against rocks and even the children would have taken up bayonets. How many of our boys would have died? 200,000?
What nation is going to prefer the death of its own citizens over the death of civilians of a country they are at war with? Did the Soviet Union treat Nazi Germany with that kind of grace?
The Soviets might have actually been justified in dropping the bomb if they had it since the Nazis were fighting to exterminate them, something that can’t be said of Japan towards America at any point, let alone near the end of the war, and don’t tell me America even slightly cared about the Chinese being slaughtered or the Korean slaves they would blow to ash.
But the myth about the Soviets being especially cruel to the Nazis is one of many fascist myths propagated to reverse the roles of victim and genocidaire, let alone the idea that they did anything so cruel as eradicate the better part of two entire major cities of civilians along with most traces of their existence. There is no comparing the conduct of the two countries in WWII, and the fact that people believe the Soviets were substantially worse is a product of Cold War revisionism.
But the myth about the Soviets being especially cruel to the Nazis is one of many fascist myths propagated to reverse the roles of victim and genocidaire
I’m not talking about Soviets being especially cruel, but taking actions to preserve their own forces over protecting civilians of countries they were at war with.
I don’t think you can really equivocate between “accepting that there will be civilians who die when you fire artillery at military targets” vs “vaporizing civilians by the tens of thousands in an instant to make a point”.
It’s also, again, completely false that the bombs even protected American soldiers, let alone anyone else.
I don’t think you can really equivocate between “accepting that there will be civilians who die when you fire artillery at military targets” vs “vaporizing civilians by the tens of thousands in an instant to make a point”.
It can when the numbers of casualties under your direct command number in the hundreds of thousands while the death rate of the belligerent side doesn’t meaningfully change between the two options. A landing in Japan was never going to be as easy as the landing in Normandy, and the landing at Normandy was the most logically difficult of the war.
I think you’ve already been told this, but that’s a false dichotomy based on bald-faced lies. Japan was already trying to conditionally surrender! Literally just take their offer and let them keep their stupid Emperor (which the US let them do anyway!) or wait a little and let the Soviets make more progress and see if that changes Japan’s attitude at all. As someone else said, it’s 200,000 mostly civilians dead over semantics and sticking it to the Reds. It is unjustifiable.
Soldiers and civilians are the same, I am very smart
I never said that.
What nation is going to prefer the death of its own citizens over the death of civilians of a country they are at war with?
How else to interpret that? Were you suggesting Japan at the end of WW2 posed a risk to US civilians?
No. I said that a country is going to value the lives of its own people over the lives of others in making military decisions. This isn’t just an American thing.
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.
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.
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.
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?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.
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?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.
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.
Still no argument, just clowning and laughing at yourself, cracker.
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.
Tpoasiwid: what happened the day after the bombs fell?
🤷
The bombs didn’t fall on the same date?
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/
If you’re truly interested in a deep and nuanced take on the topic, you’d read what actual historians (Carlin has often reiterated that he’s not one) have to say on the topic.
Carlin is a great host, don’t get me wrong. But just because he’s interesting to listen to doesn’t mean he’s always right, or that he should be taken more seriously than professionals.
I didn’t say anything to suggest that he should be taken any more seriously than professionals. The point of my comment was to give people the opportunity to listen to someone who collates the information professional historians have offered in a cohesive manner, in context, with nuance, and in a way that the host is candid in describing his shortcomings in relating or understanding the information.
I think this topic is important to understand fully, and I offered a way to obtain more information that might be easier to digest and more complete than perhaps other sources.
“We HAD to drop the nukes on innocent people bro, it’s nuanced.
Nuclear hellfire incinerating infants spared lives”
Holy shit lmfao
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.
The gratuity of dropping the bombs has very little to do with what you mention and much more to do with trying to minimize the influence of the Soviet Union. Rhetoric about “sparing lives” is vile historical revisionism.
Also the phrasing of “the Japanese” being at fault and not their fascist government and its supporters is, uh, not a good look, but that’s a tangential point.
Also the phrasing of “the Japanese” being at fault and not their fascist government and its supporters
This is an excellent thing to point out, and that was not the message I had hoped to convey. I was specifically referencing the Japanese government, not the general population of Japan. Thank you for pointing that out, and my apologies for not being more clear
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.
deleted by creator
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.
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.
