• Murvel@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    17
    ·
    7 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
      20
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      7 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
        16
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        7 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.

        • SmilingSolaris@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          12
          ·
          7 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

          • sailingbythelee@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            7 months ago

            Sure, but that wasn’t known at the time so it wasn’t a relevant factor in the decision to drop the bombs.

            • SmilingSolaris@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              12
              ·
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              But it was though. We had intercepted the communications between the Japanese foreign affairs head and the ambassador to the Soviet Union. The ambassador was attempting to get the Soviets to mediate a peace with the allies as they were not yet at war. We had their entire negotiation strategy. We had their intent and knew their wants, must haves and no go’s. All of which lines up with the peace we ultimately would have.

              We 100% knew. All we had to do was sit down and negotiate.

              • sailingbythelee@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                8
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                7 months ago

                The Japanese were not ready to surrender unconditionally, and that was the internationally agreed endpoint of the war with Germany and Japan. Unconditional surrender and occupation was considered necessary to completely break the German and Japanese spirit and ensure no third world war. The Allies didn’t want a repeat of the inter-war period between WW1 and WW2 where Germany was not occupied and could tell itself that it hadn’t really lost WW1. The Allies agreed that the way to avoid this problem was to comprehensively defeat and then force unconditional surrender on the Axis powers, followed by occupation, re-education, and rebuilding. When you look at Japan and Germany’s success after WW2, it’s hard to argue that the Allies were wrong to take that stance. The atomic bombs are a side issue. The invasion of Japan would have been so much worse.

              • Malek061@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                8
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                7 months ago

                You’re leaving out the part where the peace talks were already a non starter. https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/japanese-diplomacy-1945#:~:text=Japan’s ambassador to the Soviet Union in 1945%2C Naotake Sato,That effort ran through Sato.

                After what japan had done, there should have been more bombs dropped.

                And I know your argument is disingenuous because the fire bombing of Tokyo killed more people.

      • Murvel@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        7 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.

        • SmilingSolaris@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          11
          ·
          7 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