this post was submitted on 13 Aug 2024
957 points (97.5% liked)
WTF
779 readers
1 users here now
The average c/WTF enjoyer
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yeah, the bombs’ effects were horrific. It’s absolutely amazing that even that level of devastation was able, in the balance, to save lives.
I don't understand. What balance, what lives?
The prevailing sentiment was that the Japanese would not surrender until their home islands were totally conquered. Their government was in the process of preparing the civilian population to fight to the death. (Research the invasion of Okinawa if you want to know what a US invasion of the main island would have been like.) In a version of the trolley dilemma, the American rational was that the loss of life in two horrific attacks that would shock the Japanese into surrender was less evil than the alternative of invading their home islands.
I'm not making that argument, or saying there were no alternatives, just that the Americans were weighing the loss of life (including civilians) involved in a nuclear bombing against the loss of life (including civilians) in invading the islands.
Notwithstanding other unthought of solutions, the strategy worked, and the apparent alternative would have been brutal.
Didn't they want to surrender on their terms though?
They weren't in much of a position to set terms, were they
I mean no they weren't, but when they set terms that they were going to get anyways... is it really setting terms?
Allieds had decided together and told the Japanese that they'd accept nothing but unconditional surrender. At that point asking for anything would be an attempt to set terms.
lol, the prevailing sentiment according to Taniwha420, the human pretzel, so called for the shocking degrees they bend facts to fit their narrative. puff puff? I think I'll pass.
There's just as many voices, and evidence, that the Japanese were looking for a way out of the war. There were other "non-brutal" options you ignore, pretending they didn't exist. It would be one thing if you presented both sides honestly, but clearly you're just AFP, another fucking propagandist.
They did not save any lives, that is a completely made up invention. In fact Imperial Japan cared little about the atomic bomb, and even if a land invasion had become necessary, the USA had made a deal with the USSR to invade on land.
This was the real reason for the bombings, not to beat Japan into submission, which Roosevelt's deal with the USSR for a land invasion ensured, but to show the USSR the destructive power the US held. Truman was a staunch anticommunist, and refused to let the USSR play the part Roosevelt negociated in a land invasion.
It was a war crime with no benefits at all except to show off to the USSR, who would develop nukes themselves 4 years later anyway. An absolute tragedy which proved to be entirely useless.
Your understanding of the historical record is not only fatally incomplete; it’s also riddled with inaccuracies and purposefully promulgated falsehoods. Get less history from pop sources and ideologically steered texts.