• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    591 month ago

    I feel like the narrative surrounding the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings has changed enormously since I was a kid.

    I remember learning that, while tragic, the number of lives lost in the bombing paled in comparison to the numbers of lives being lost and that would be lost in winning the war by conventional means. That it was a way to minimize further bloodshed.

    I’m not super well read on the subject, but is that not true? Or, if it is true, does it not matter?

    I’m mostly just trying to figure out what caused the shift.

    • sbr32
      link
      fedilink
      601 month ago

      Some disclaimers

      I am a 50+ year old American

      Up until 10ish years ago I had at least a better than average understanding/knowledge of WWII

      My ex’s grandmother’s family was from Hiroshima and they had family members killed in the bombing.

      All that said as tragic as they were I still think those bombs were the correct military decision at that time. I would be willing to have a rational conversation about it though.

      The situation in Gaza is completely different and Lindsey Graham and the rest of the GOP are fucking ghouls.

      • Flying Squid
        link
        fedilink
        121 month ago

        Also, I have always thought that, as horrific and tragic as what happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were, the fact that the world was able to view the aftermath has been what has prevented a larger nuclear exchange. I don’t know if the Cuban Missile Crisis would have gone the same way without everyone knowing exactly what an atomic bomb does.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        41 month ago

        Is your argument for bombing being the right decision the same (that it resulted in less bloodshed overall)? If so, how can you estimate the body count of the alternative (a prolonged conventional war, I assume)?

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          71 month ago

          I mean, you could project based on the casualties already incurred I suppose.

          Looks to be about 65k Americans military members died in the Pacific theater, and we were still a long ways off from reaching mainland Japan, and the fighting was only gonna get worse the farther in we got. And that’s just Americans. It doesn’t count the Japanese casualties, which by all accounts dwarfed the American numbers.

          200k civilians were killed in the atomic bombings. Now, it’s worth noting that those are civilian deaths, which one can argue have a higher moral weight than combatant deaths.

          So, all that said, in plain numbers I think it’s an extremely safe bet that far more than 200k more people would have died in a blockade/land invasion scenario. But, you could argue that it’s apples to oranges since the bombs were on civilian targets.

          It’s also worth noting to that the 200k dead to resolve the war were all non-American, which doesn’t make it any less of a tragic loss of life, but matters in the “political” sense. If you are at war, and you are handed a solution that can end the war without sending any more of your own people to die, do you as the leader have a moral responsibility to do it? Like, if you have the choice in front of you to either bomb a civilian target, killing 200k “enemy” civilians but ending the war, or sending even 100k American’s to their deaths, knowing that you are the one responsible for making sure those men and women get home safe, can you in good conscience choose the latter? Is it better to choose the latter? I wouldn’t want to have to make that decision, but I also am loathe to second guess the decision of the person who has to make it.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        11 month ago

        To this day gaman or Japanese stoicism is a big part of Japanese culture. The Japanese had already lost the war, but the ruling class was willing to sacrifice scores of people to fight to the bitter end.

        In an episode of Hardcore History, it detailed that the Allied ships couldn’t dock in Okinawa because of all the corpses in the water. The Japanese had inundated Okinawa with propaganda that the Americans were going to rape them all. Many families killed themselves. And the invasion of the mainland was only going to get bloodier.

        A terrible as it is to say, dropping the nukes was the more humane option of the two.

    • @[email protected]OPM
      link
      fedilink
      171 month ago

      Back in HS, I think I was told that it was a regrettable ending and we probably went a bit overboard.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          181 month ago

          I remember watching it. The problem with the video is that they seriously overestimate the willingness of the Japanese to surrender without giving any evidence to back this up. The Japanese were absolutely not willing to surrender. I mean, just look at their reaction after Hiroshima. There was a lot of debate AFTER an entire city had been razed to the ground. Japan was absolutely not going to surrender without a nuke being dropped.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            30
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            The Japanese were attempting to negotiate surrender with the “neutral” USSR prior to the nuclear bombs. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan The US wanted an unconditional surrender which included the destruction of the Japanese emperor, who at the time, was the head of the Japanese religion. To put this into perspective, consider the United States request similar to requesting the destruction of the Pope within the Vatican. Because of this, the Japanese were seeking better terms of surrender which did not involved the removal of their religious leader. What the Japanese did not know at the time was the USSR was not a neutral party, and they were secretly mobilizing their forces on mainland Asia due to an agreement Stalin made with FDR prior to the US entering the war in Europe.

            The reality is, once Japan learned that the USSR was not neutral and they were going to be fighting the US and the USSR in a two front war, this is when the emperor forced Japan to surrender.

            To put things into perspective, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, were sadly, just another two cities leveled by the US. The US were performing night carpet bombing on Japanese cities as soon as 1944. Many of these raids leveled several square km of urban areas. https://ww2db.com/battle_spec.php?battle_id=217. This is why people argue that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were probably not the catalyst to Japan’s surrender because the US have been leveling Japanese cities, killing hundreds of thousands of Japanese citizens, long before the two nuclear bombs were dropped. None of these raids caused Japan to surrender before.

        • @jballs
          link
          English
          21 month ago

          Yikes 2 hours and 20 minutes. I’ll try to watch as much as I can today, but probably can’t get through the whole thing. Any high points I should watch?

          • TheRealKuni
            link
            fedilink
            English
            11 month ago

            Been a while since I watched it, like I said I’d recommend listening to it. Treat it like a podcast, for me the time flew by and I ended up listening to every video he has over the following weeks. 😂

            • @jballs
              link
              English
              31 month ago

              I wasn’t planning on spending my morning watching a 2 and a half hour YouTube video, but here we are and that’s exactly what happened. That was a fascinating watch. I’d say for others that the TLDW is this:

              • The narrative that the atomic bombs were dropped to prevent an invasion of Japan is false and was constructed afterwards as a plausible and easy to understand solution that allowed all parties (both the US and Japan) to come out looking good in the end.

              • The reality of the situation was much more complicated. At the time, there was never a US plan to invade Japan.

              • Japan was already thoroughly defeated militarily and was looking to negotiate a surrender. Japan was hoping that Russia would be useful to negotiate peace with the US.

              • The US had previously asked Russia to enter the war, but then later realized it was not necessary to bring about an end to the war. The US actually realized having Russia involved would complicate the post-war logistics and would bolster Russia as a world super power. When sending terms of surrender to Japan, the US removed Russia as a signer of the terms, leaving Japan a false hope that Russia could still be used help them secure better terms.

              • Russia informed the US that they would be declaring war with Japan on August 15. The US dropped the bombs on Japan a week earlier in hopes of accelerating Japan’s surrender before Russia entered the war.

              • As a result, Russia declared war on Japan in the days between the bombs being dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Japan issued their surrender shortly afterwards. In all likelihood, dropping the bombs accelerated the surrender timeline by about a week. Though it could be argued that had Russia’s signature been kept on the surrender terms sent to Japan, it would have also ended the war earlier.

              • TheRealKuni
                link
                fedilink
                English
                21 month ago

                Isn’t he fantastic? His videos are so well-researched and well-written that I’d listen to his vaguely monotonous scouse voice talk about pretty much anything.

                • @jballs
                  link
                  English
                  31 month ago

                  Yeah it really was a good watch. The length and minimal use of graphics at first were intimidating, but he still kept it interesting so it was easy to absorb.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      111 month ago

      It depends whether you think killing 200,000+ civilians is a defensible act.

      300,000+ if you include the bombing of Tokyo.

      Nobody knows how a conventional war would have played out. To assert civilian deaths would have been higher is pure speculation and a gross attempt to justify the slaughter of noncombatants.

      Though it is likely that even without nukes, the US would have still razed these cities with conventional munitions, given the events in Tokyo.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      21 month ago

      There’s also the possibility that because of Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear weapons have never since been used. What would cold war been like in that case?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      21 month ago

      My understanding is that even after Hiroshima, the Imperial Army attempted a coup to avoid surrender.

      The Japanese were not stopping. The only alternative at hand was a full invasion, which would have killed many, many more.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      11 month ago

      Modern commentary on the use of nuclear weapons on Japan mostly conclude it was not necessary and that a full scale invasion would not have been necessary to force a full surrender.

      What I find fascinating is how hyper focused everyone became on the nuclear bombs due to the spectacular nature of the technology, whereas things like the firebombing of Tokyo are discussed far less.

      “The raids that were conducted by the U.S. military on the night of 9–10 March 1945, codenamed Operation Meetinghouse, are the single most destructive bombing raid in human history.[1] 16 square miles (41 km2; 10,000 acres) of central Tokyo was destroyed, leaving an estimated 100,000 civilians dead and over one million homeless.[1] The atomic bombing of Hiroshima in August 1945, by comparison, resulted in the immediate death of an estimated 70,000 to 150,000 people.”