• Murvel@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

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

      • Murvel@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        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?

        • SmilingSolaris@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 months ago

          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.

          • sailingbythelee@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            8 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.

          • Murvel@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            8 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.

      • Murvel@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

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

        • SmilingSolaris@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 months ago

          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?

          • Murvel@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            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…

            • SmilingSolaris@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              8 months ago

              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

              • Murvel@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                8 months ago

                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.

                • SmilingSolaris@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  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.

              • Murvel@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                8 months ago

                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