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

    The decision to nuke japan was based on factors entirely different than any possible factor to nuke gaza.

    Pretty sure we’re still handing out the purple hearts that were made in case a ground invasion was necessary.

    Like, those stories about Japanese soldiers hiding for decades and never believing Japan surrendered? That was the common sentiment.

    And loads more civilians were killed in traditional bombings.

    It was the fact that one atomic bomb could do so much damage, and the Japanese had no idea how many we had. You could rebuild buildings destroyed conventionally. But atomic bombs could literally make land uninhabitable for generations.

    That’s what it took to make Japan surrender.

    It was brutal and I hope it never happens again, but it was the best hand we could have played.

    • Windex007@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      This is an interpretation of what happened. It’s the one that paints America in the most favourable light, for sure.

      Another one is that the “no surrender” mentality was a direct result of the terms of the Potsdam Declaration which demanded “unconditional surrender” from Japan. Japan knew they had lost, they were just hoping to fight for the SPECIFIC surrender condition of the preservation of the Imperial line (aka, let the Emporer still be the Emporer, preserve the family).

      Had the Potsdam Declaration permitted that concession, it very well may have been the case that no nukes would have been necessary.

      Anyways: tough to understand the exact truth of any hypothetical situation. I just think it’s unfortunate that the “The USA HAD to, though” argument is so often repeated without a very full context of the surrounding political realities. It’s a very bite sized explanation, and it paints the USA in a fantastic light. It’s perhaps not a coincidence that it was AT Potsdam that the west hinted to Stalin of the existence of the nuclear bomb.

      What’s the point of building the thing if you can’t prove to the world you have it, and are willing to use it?

      • Patapon Enjoyer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        Another one is that the “no surrender” mentality was a direct result of the terms of the Potsdam Declaration which demanded “unconditional surrender” from Japan. Japan knew they had lost, they were just hoping to fight for the SPECIFIC surrender condition of the preservation of the Imperial line (aka, let the Emporer still be the Emporer, preserve the family).

        It should be pointed out that this is what ended up happening anyway. The emperor stayed in power and lived until like the 90s. So whoopsie daisy on the whole nuke thing

      • circuscritic@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        You are leaving out the historical context of hyper violent insane independent action for honor mindset of the soldiers within the Imperial Japanese Army and Navy (IJA/IJN).

        This culture of insubordination included a widespread belief that they did not to have obey civilian commands, and is largely responsible for ground level soldiers deciding on their own to kick off the war in Manchuria.

        It’s entirely reasonable to envision a counterfactual version where either one of, or both the IJA and IJN refuse to surrender, or even just large contingents within either.

        I’m not saying this to invalidate anything you’ve said, but I do think it’s highly relevant context when considering any alternative ways that could have gone.

    • livus@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      8 months ago

      Well no, the best hand you could have played would have been to drop them on military targets instead of civilian targets.

      Those bombs were war crimes too; we don’t need to invoke some kind of American exceptionalism for a war crime that happened 80 years ago.