|
Kilroy posted:Consider if we hadn't used nuclear weapons the subsequent coups that occurred even after we did, may have attracted more supporters and been successful. Then we're right back to square one, or worse. The thing about valuing civilians more than soldiers is an understandable position, but an invasion of the mainland would have seen soldiers indiscriminately shelling villages before entry, flamethrowing houses, and a whole litany of other terrible things. Total War didn't just mean nukes and firebombs, it was also apparent at the ground level in how infantry units would fire and maneuver. There was no choice available that would have resulted in less civilian casualties.
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 14:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 07:54 |
|
|
rscott posted:This is actually not particularly true in any sense and is basically Nazi propaganda to blame the Allies for the war No, the Treaty of Versailles absolutely wrecked the German economy. The reason the Nazis were able to take hold is because things were so bad for the average person in Germany. Fascism doesn't spring out of nowhere. It's not propaganda at all, most historians who know what they're talking about cite it specifically as too onerous a settlement for Germany and even the US president at the time argued against it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 19:18
|
|
|
new phone who dis posted:No, the Treaty of Versailles absolutely wrecked the German economy. The reason the Nazis were able to take hold is because things were so bad for the average person in Germany. Fascism doesn't spring out of nowhere. It's not propaganda at all, most historians who know what they're talking about cite it specifically as too onerous a settlement for Germany and even the US president at the time argued against it. More recent historians agree that it was the massive unemployment from the Great Depression that allowed the Nazis to come into power. If you look at the data, you see that the two main spikes are the Occupation of the Ruhr by the French, and the Great Depression. After the French gave up on the Occupation of the Ruhr, the Treaty of Versailles basically stopped having any major effect upon the Germany economy, aside from the ticking time bomb in America.  
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 19:38
|
|
|
Hyperinflation started in the early 20 as a result of debt payments and had already completely wrecked the economy. The depression hurt in the 30s, but it was just more bad added to the pile. It doesn't matter if everyone is working when your currency isn't valued enough to feed yourself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation_in_the_Weimar_Republic
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 19:57
|
|
|
new phone who dis posted:Hyperinflation started in the early 20 as a result of debt payments and had already completely wrecked the economy. The depression hurt in the 30s, but it was just more bad added to the pile. It doesn't matter if everyone is working when your currency isn't valued enough to feed yourself. If you'd read your own Wikipedia article you'd see that they were already stabilizing by 1923, and had it totally under control by 1925. Unemployment in Germany dropped 1924, and didn't start spiking back up until the Great Depression.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 20:04
|
|
|
The hyperinflation gave room for Hitler to lay the groundwork for the Nazi party, the Great Depression allowed him to spread National Socialism across the country. Without one, you don't get the other.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 20:19
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:The thing about valuing civilians more than soldiers is an understandable position, but an invasion of the mainland would have seen soldiers indiscriminately shelling villages before entry, flamethrowing houses, and a whole litany of other terrible things. 5 million casualties from poison gas being used on Japanese cities. http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1998-01/most-deadly-plan quote:The U.S. death toll was inciting strong reactions. "You can cook them with Gas," read an editorial headline in The Chicago Tribune on 11 March 1945, as U.S. troops were fighting on Luzon and Iwo Jima with heavy losses. The editorial declared the charge that poison gas "is inhumane" as "both false and irrelevant. ... The use of gas might save the lives of many hundreds of Americans and of some of the Japanese as well." quote:The use of gas was to begin 15 days before the landings—starting with a drenching of much of Tokyo, because an "attack of this size against an urban city of large population should be used to initiate gas warfare." Planners targeted 17.5 square miles directly north of the Imperial Palace and west of the Sumida River. Almost a million people would be in that area at the time of the first strike. Within two miles of the target area were 776,000 more Japanese; they probably would be in the path of wind-carried gas. (Ironically, the size of the targeted area was almost exactly the same as the area of Tokyo burned out by the B-29 firebombing on the night of 9-10 March 1945. But the chemical warfare planners made no reference to bombing damage to cities on the target list.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 01:44
|
|
|
Hey guys, dropping the nuclear bombs and massacring hundreds of thousands of innocent people might have been a war crime. But the if the US hadn't committed that war crime it might have chosen to commit war crimes that were just as bad or worse. Therefore dropping the atomic bombs wasn't a war crime. Yours truly, a moron
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 02:37
|
|
|
lol they wouldn't have "chosen" to commit a different war crime, they were already doing it
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 02:50
|
|
|
Also, the allied occupation of the Ruhr in 1923-1924 was an enormous source of embarrassment and anger for the German population that didn't dissolve with lower inflation. Oh yeah, much of the German middle class had their savings wiped out in the mid-1920s and that money didn't suddenly return after 1925. Hyperinflation wasn't the final event that led to the rise of Hitler, it was one of the major ones on the way.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 03:09
|
|
|
The notion that atomic bombs represent merely a difference of degree and not of kind to conventional bombing is such disingenuous horseshit. The victims of the bombings certainly don't see it that way. The explosion created by the atomic bomb didn't just kill and maim a ton of people, it created a literal storm of black toxic poo poo that rained the ashes of the dead on their survivors, who themselves would inevitably succumb, molecule by molecule, to agonizing deaths of their own. Consider the abject horror of giving birth to a child with a club foot whose grandfather's shadow is seared into the rubble of the ground zero. Consider the degradation of being a victim of the single most terrifying event in human history, someone whose very existence is so dismaying that even your own people avoid being near you. Whether they were inevitable or necessary or whatever else, the bombings plunged the world into an existential crisis that would come to define the next fifty years and left the threat of catastrophic annihilation as a lingering fixture in the Japanese national psyche. They were no where near just being "uh, like a lot of TNT".
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 03:57
|
|
|
Chomskyan posted:Hey guys, dropping the nuclear bombs and massacring hundreds of thousands of innocent people might have been a war crime. But the if the US hadn't committed that war crime it might have chosen to commit war crimes that were just as bad or worse. Therefore dropping the atomic bombs wasn't a war crime. It's almost like far leftists circa 2016 would have been mad no matter what the US did thanks to a Cold War's worth of revisionism.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 05:01
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:It's almost like far leftists circa 2016 would have been mad no matter what war crimes the US did thanks to a Cold War's worth of revisionism.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 06:07
|
|
|
Are there any war crimes Americans will cop to? Or do they just whatabout about tankies all day?
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 06:45
|
|
|
TomViolence posted:Are there any war crimes Americans will cop to? Or do they just whatabout about tankies all day? My Lai (although I'm not American) Still waiting to hear a US course of action that couldn't be construed as a war crime. Giving the Japanese what they wanted?
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 06:56
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Still waiting to hear a US course of action that couldn't be construed as a war crime. Giving the Japanese what they wanted?
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 07:17
|
|
|
Chomskyan posted:I believe the US should have opened peace negotiations with the Japanese and not insisted on an "unconditional" surrender. Guarantees for the emperor's personal safety should absolutely have been on the table. That's a reasonable concession for saving hundreds of thousands of lives. So the US should have allowed the continuity of a government that started a war of aggression and murdered millions for the sake of territorial expansion?
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 07:18
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:So the US should have allowed the continuity of a government that started a war of aggression and murdered millions for the sake of territorial expansion?
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 07:59
|
|
|
You seem to forget that the longer the war was going for, the longer the Japanese were able to plunder and genocide their holdings in China and Korea. This isn't some show of force bullshit, this is defeating a genocidal regime on par with Hitler's, which is also situated in one of the most difficult to crack geographic locations. But yeah, the American leaders were the real bad guys, who probably had no reason to start a war with Japan in the first place, except for racism. It may be arguable that the bombs weren't needed because the Soviet offensive would start soon and the Japanese military and imperial holdings would evaporate, but then the question is, did anybody expect the August Storm to be as fast and decisive as it was, after the years of slog in China? steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 08:09 on Oct 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 08:02
|
|
|
Chomskyan posted:No, but the US should have opened peace negotiations with the Japanese and not insisted on an unconditional surrender. Revisionist nonsense. The only acceptable terms were synonymous with unconditional surrender - removal of Japanese presence from all non-Japanese territories, including Soviet claims, demilitarization, military occupation by Allies, destruction of the belligerent state elites. The Japanese were extremely determined to keep the war going til the end just to see if something could convince the US to give up their demands.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 08:06
|
|
|
Not that I don't think debating the decision to drop the domb in this kind of counterfactual way is useful, but an obvious requirement of moral behavior is that it be deliberately, and not incidentally, moral. In other words, any nobler purpose than a deliberately gratuitous show of force has to be the actual reason to do it, not just a theoretical justification. There is no possible interpretation of the actual historical circumstances where the Allies don't come away looking positively monstrous.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 08:33
|
|
|
spotlessd posted:Not that I don't think debating the decision to drop the domb in this kind of counterfactual way is useful, but an obvious requirement of moral behavior is that it be deliberately, and not incidentally, moral. In other words, any nobler purpose than a deliberately gratuitous show of force has to be the actual reason to do it, not just a theoretical justification. There is no possible interpretation of the actual historical circumstances where the Allies don't come away looking positively monstrous. Only if you look at the entire situation in a moral vacuum, at which point you come away with "war is bad and everyone who prosecutes it is bad no matter the circumstances" which is uhhhh hard to defend in the context of WW2.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 08:43
|
|
|
spotlessd posted:Not that I don't think debating the decision to drop the domb in this kind of counterfactual way is useful, but an obvious requirement of moral behavior is that it be deliberately, and not incidentally, moral. In other words, any nobler purpose than a deliberately gratuitous show of force has to be the actual reason to do it, not just a theoretical justification. There is no possible interpretation of the actual historical circumstances where the Allies don't come away looking positively monstrous. The moral context is that the allied states and friendly territories in Asia were beleaguered by Japanese forces whose behavior was as bad as that of the Nazis, and that the US acted both out of the interest of its own military, and due to considerations and diplomatic pressures from the countries who were unfortunate enough to be still suffering murder and destruction in 1945 due to the Japanese refusal to approach peace mediation even remotely realistically. Prolonging the war meant endangering the survival of many among the hundreds of millions of people still within the Japanese sphere of influence. I wonder if anybody would defend just ending the war with Germany on less than unconditional terms, but somehow in Japan the situation is different - probably because their victims were in Asia, and therefore less visible to western eyes today? steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 09:03 on Oct 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 09:01
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:I wonder if anybody would defend just ending the war with Germany on less than unconditional terms, but somehow in Japan the situation is different - probably because their victims were in Asia, and therefore less visible to western eyes today? It's because the Soviets didn't meaningfully participate in the Pacific Theatre until the very end and a lot of A-bomb revisionism can be traced back to Cold War ideology. It's also the reason why the same folks who decry the A-bombs usually lionize the Soviet role in Japan's surrender.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 09:06
|
|
|
The Allies should negotiate a peace with Hitler, wherein he is forced to limit his final solution to German territories and the half of Poland yet to be retaken at this point in the war.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 09:13
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Christ it sounds like there were no moral options to take and maybe perhaps look at things as they were and how how they could be if Hitler was gay and black. Like going over the alternate plans if nukes were not on the table. That is, wide spread chemical warfare on civilian populations and widespread blockade famine as the invasion continues. gently caress I do not think anyone is defending the bomb like it cuddled the victims it had. WW2 is hopefully the last conflict a single weapon does mega-casualties.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 09:14
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:My Lai (although I'm not American) Oh then let me introduce you the The Battle Hymn of Lt Calley https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXNsXIxBkqs
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 09:26
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:The moral context is that the allied states and friendly territories in Asia were beleaguered by Japanese forces whose behavior was as bad as that of the Nazis, and that the US acted both out of the interest of its own military, and due to considerations and diplomatic pressures from the countries who were unfortunate enough to be still suffering murder and destruction in 1945 due to the Japanese refusal to approach peace mediation even remotely realistically. Prolonging the war meant endangering the survival of many among the hundreds of millions of people still within the Japanese sphere of influence. Who cares about the context? The moral justification for the bombings can't exist unless it was actually the moral justification for the bombings. You can steal a loaf of bread to feed a starving family or you can steal a loaf of bread to prove that you'll loving do it, man, even if afterwards you still give it to the family. This sort of consequentialist line about "well gee the war would have just dragged on and on" and whatever else is fine but it doesn't speak to the question of motive or culpability, right? It's just "hey! a lot of good came out of that war crime!" If the good is merely incidental and not the motivating factor, it doesn't even rise to the level of wrong decision made for right reasons. It's just wrong for wrong.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 09:51
|
|
|
spotlessd posted:Who cares about the context? The moral justification for the bombings can't exist unless it was actually the moral justification for the bombings. You can steal a loaf of bread to feed a starving family or you can steal a loaf of bread to prove that you'll loving do it, man, even if afterwards you still give it to the family. This sort of consequentialist line about "well gee the war would have just dragged on and on" and whatever else is fine but it doesn't speak to the question of motive or culpability, right? It's just "hey! a lot of good came out of that war crime!" If the good is merely incidental and not the motivating factor, it doesn't even rise to the level of wrong decision made for right reasons. It's just wrong for wrong. The moral context was the reason for the event to take place. The AMerican government wasn't an island taking random steps like some sort of an autistic demiurge.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 10:04
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:The moral context was the reason for the event to take place. The AMerican government wasn't an island taking random steps like some sort of an autistic demiurge. Who says that it was? My point is precisely that the bombings were undertaken with a specific motive, and that the argument therefore ought to start at whether the motive was sincerely related to something like the theoretical greater good before any discussion of various kind of counterfactual situations can take place. The, whatever, philosophical components of morality involve knowing something will result in "good", being therefore motivated by the good (and nothing else--good can't be a "perk" here), and then acting in a way that is consistent with achieving good. The dispute here should revolve around whether America took a disinterested step towards achieving good (preventing further atrocity) or whether it was merely incidental to more pragmatic concerns (emerging as an unimpeachable world superpower in the aftermath), not whether theoretical alternatives would have been better or worse.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 10:29
|
|
|
Chomskyan posted:Hey guys, dropping the nuclear bombs and massacring hundreds of thousands of innocent people might have been a war crime. But the if the US hadn't committed that war crime it might have chosen to commit war crimes that were just as bad or worse. Therefore dropping the atomic bombs wasn't a war crime. " - I could sort of understand this reasoning if it weren't for the whole "war on terror" mentality we've taken in the past fifteen years. It's like reading that old article about pro-life activists getting abortions, except they're getting 50 abortions at a time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 12:38
|
|
|
Chomskyan posted:No, but the US should have opened peace negotiations with the Japanese and not insisted on an unconditional surrender. You seem to think that the military junta in charge of Japan gave two shits about the Emperor. That's cute.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 12:38
|
|
|
Since some of them chose to rather die than testify against Hirohito...
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 12:42
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Since some of them chose to rather die than testify against Hirohito... and some of them tried to topple him, too after the bombings
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 12:45
|
|
|
Basically there were multiple reasons preventing a Japanese surrender, the often stressed loyalty to the Emperor is one, and self-preservation / more generic nationalism of the government was another.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 12:51
|
|
|
The atomic bombs saved the lives of american and allied soldiers and civilians so it was justified. Japanese lives were the Japanese governments responsibility, not the USA.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 12:53
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Basically there were multiple reasons preventing a Japanese surrender, the often stressed loyalty to the Emperor is one, and self-preservation / more generic nationalism of the government was another. This is where everyone gets tripped up, though. We know all this now, but the Allied commanders of the time did not. When the Potsdam Declaration was broadcast, the Emperor agreed that it was the best deal they were going to reach. For weeks, the military junta was split into two camps, surrender, and no surrender. From the Allied perspective, the Japanese silence on the issue was the same as non-acceptance. Perhaps the Allies could have been more clear about what was going to happen, that's certainly an argument to be made. However, I see no reason to believe that the Japanese would have heeded stronger warnings, especially since the vote held after both the Soviet declaration of war and the twin atomic bombings resulted in a deadlocked vote for surrender with the Emperor casting the deciding vote. I mean if the Emperor was the supreme authority, and the military junta did everything for His Glory, then by all accounts Japan should have surrendered at the end of July when Hirohito first said that the Potsdam Declaration was the best deal they would get.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 13:00
|
|
|
Japan deserved to get nuked after spending a decade raping and murdering their way across Asia. The nukes also inflicted a generational trauma which prevented Japan from getting into any more military adventures for the entire Cold War and beyond. Threat neutralized, with extreme prejudice 
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 12:59
|
|
|
Was Japan even a credible threat beyond its own borders on the eve of the bombings? Why was it so important for them to unconditionally surrender at that time, rather than weeks or months later?
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 13:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 07:54 |
|
|
ANIME AKBAR posted:Was Japan even a credible threat beyond its own borders on the eve of the bombings? Why was it so important for them to unconditionally surrender at that time, rather than weeks or months later? From our perspective it wasn't, from the Japanese civilians perspective those weeks meant the difference between living and starving to death. This is the inconvenient truth people against the bomb don't see, Japan was weeks away from starving to death as a nation. I mean I guess that's better?
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 13:13
|
|