this post was submitted on 30 Mar 2024
0 points (NaN% liked)

World News

38553 readers
2462 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Of course, thats your prerogative, but then, quite frankly, you don't know enough about Japanese war crimes.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I'm sorry, what war crimes did the civilians of Nagasaki and Hiroshima commit?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I'm sorry, what war crimes did the civilians of Nagasaki and Hiroshima commit?

None, but the state that governed them did, and the people are part of the state. What's you point?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (2 children)

My point is that targeting civilians is never okay. And if we are going to open the box to "well the state committed war crimes so civilians had to be targeted" I'd like to know your opinions on both 9/11 and October 7th, cause I bet there's gonna be some inconsistency to your belief.

But that whole argument concedes the point that the nukes stopped Japan. They did not. Japan was already sueing for peace. They were willing to negotiate and we know that what they were and were not willing to give up lines up with what we did end up agreeing to post war anyways. The nukes were pointless on top of being abhorrent.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago

But that whole argument concedes the point that the nukes stopped Japan. They did not. Japan was already sueing for peace. They were willing to negotiate and we know that what they were and were not willing to give up lines up with what we did end up agreeing to post war anyways. The nukes were pointless on top of being abhorrent.

You better have a good source if you're going to make such a bold statement.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago

You are incredibly naive. Total war between industrialized nations, as happened in WW2, is won or lost on industrial capacity. States literally need to cripple their enemy's ability and will to wage war, which means destroying industrial production, food production, access to safe water, and civil infrastructure. And that is why there should never be another great power war.

As for the USA's use of nuclear weapons in Japan, they weren't used to "win" the war. As you say, the Japanese were effectively beaten. Nukes were used to force an immediate surrender, saving millions of both American and Japanese lives.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Fight war crimes with war crimes

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Debatable. But as always with this topic; what else would force the Japanese surrender?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Maybe the fact they were already sueing for peace? Maybe the complete distruction of their Navy and Air forces? Maybe the blockaid we had on the island? Maybe the fact they were already sueing for peace?

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

Oh boy, fun! By all means, provide a source that states that Japan would have surrendered irrespective of the atomic bombings. This could be amusing...

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945. Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war. and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated. - The United States Strategic Bombing survey (European war) (Pacific War) https://ia801903.us.archive.org/33/items/unitedstatesstra00cent/unitedstatesstra00cent.pdf

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Are you arguing that the strategic bombings were justified to end the war, but the atomic bombings were not? That's a unique opinion, to be sure.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Now you're just being argumentative throwing out accusations cause you got sourced. You don't want to defend your position anymore so your attempting to shift the argument entirely.

Defend your stance or shut it.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

What? You provided a source that states just that?...

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Still trying to shift the goal posts. I will not be responding to your 5 second skim of a source you didn't read because you think you gotta win an argument above all else. You asked for a source that showed the bombings were unnecessary. You got it. Defend the point or shut it. If you want to argue the finer details of the American strategic bombing campaign and it's effectiveness then get a history degree. Because that is NOT the argument being made here. Neither by me or by you. Attempting to bring that up is irrelevant to the conversation at hand.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Your source states, based on your quote, that the atomic bombings would be unnecessary if the strategic bombing continued... and that's your argument for why the atomic bombings were unjustified?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Done with you. Misrepresenting my argument and moving the goal posts. You have given up defending your point, that the nukes were necessary and instead are trying portray my argument, that the nukes were unnecessary, as one advocating for continued strategic bombardment.

You wanna read more about strategic bombing in general and it's own inadequacies then go ahead. But that's not what this conversation is. Go get a history degree if you want to dive into the nuances, otherwise continued arguments with you are pointless.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago

You throw out random sources that you hope would support your claim, so yeah, I feel this thing is done to. From the start, actually, waste of time.

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

Here's a whole video essay on the topic

https://youtu.be/RCRTgtpC-Go?si=67gvnic_eEXJRAPQ

Japan was already asking for peace but the US was turning them down.

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

Lmao, in your source, the narrator correctly claims that Emepeor Hirohito had to intervene and force the military to stand down following the atomic bombings. Literally, the first three minutes of the video.... gtfo

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (2 children)

My man's here just read 2 sentences of an introduction and thinks that's the whole essay.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago

All that was needed...

[–] [email protected] -1 points 5 months ago

My man's here heard a single fact he didn't know before and decided everything about it was wrong

[–] [email protected] -1 points 5 months ago

Yes that literally happened.