|
Tezzor posted:By "consistency check" you mean "water-muddying deflection away from a topic you can't factually or morally justify." Stop evading and answer the question. Both are bombs falling from bombers, both cause huge civilian deaths.
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 16:35
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 15:47 |
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Right, and the firebombing was also not an immediate or decisive factor in causing Japan's surrender I think I want to ask for a citation for this because Smash's post was all about the atomic bombings and not the effects of the firebombings.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 16:36
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:So nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki wasn't anything special if we go by the damage inflicted, but it was so scary that it caused Japan to surrender. Funny how that doesn't make any sense at all. It absolutely does. Heroshima and Nagasaki were terrible - but as a bombing run on a city, they killed around as much as the firebombing of Toyko, maybe less. The terrifying thing was that it was two bombers with two bombs: they offered the threat (though given the low amount of fissile material, an empty one) of the bombing campaigns being terrifyingly more effective if nuclear bombs started getting used routinely. You could talk yourself into believing you can survive conventional bombing - Germany was never forced out of the war due to the bombings - but you couldn't really talk yourself into believing your nation could survive repeated nuclear bombings. So yes: the actual damage caused by Hiroshima and Nagasaki - while certainly horrific by any standard - was not that special given the horrors caused by the conventional bombing campaigns of WWII. But they demonstrated that they could absolutely be much worse. Your attempt to trap this as a logical contradiction doesn't work because you just haven't really thought it through.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 16:36
|
|
|
Killing civilians on an industrial scale with one weapon isn't any different than killing civilians on an industrial scale with hundreds or even thousands of weapons, and there wasn't a single major power in WW2 that didn't kill civilians on an industrial scale so why the gently caress are two cities being obliterated more important than all the other ones? I mean the only difference between Hiroshima and Nagasaki and every other city that was ground into dust in WW2 (Dresden, Nanking, Stalingrad, Osaka, Kassel, Darmstadt, Pforzheim, Swinoujscie, London, Berlin, Hamburg, Tokyo, ect, ect,) was that it only took one bomb a piece to do it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 16:36
|
|
|
MODS CURE JOKES posted:How? Tell me what the alternative was, because I've never heard it. Every book I've read portrays the Japanese as, well, absolutely over the moon and not willing to consider the toll of human death. The alternative was accept a surrender offer. The depiction of the Japanese as insane Klingons are largely unsubstantiated apologetics by the Allies which confuse the sentiments of some higher-ups in the military - stubborn career officers who want to keep fighting exist in any military at war- with the general population. In doing so, the mass murder apologist must walk a very fine line. On the one hand, the Japanese were suicidal yellow goblins obsessed beyond all reason with victory and honor. On the other hand, their actual actions of near immediate total unconditional surrender. One would think that it would be far more congruent with their character to redouble their efforts after the enemy slaughtered a few hundred thousand of their wives, children, priests and grandfathers.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 16:37
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:The Japanese officials should be treated as unbiased sources because we literally have the notes from the Japanese Supreme War Council's meetings and those show that they didn't consider the nuking of Hiroshima as something significant enough to even consider surrendering over. The first time that they even discussed the question was in the morning of August 9th. What prompted this? Well, around 4 AM on August 9th, the USSR invaded. Hell, they didn't even get the report that Nagasaki had been nuked too until after that meeting was done and the detailed reports of what exactly had happened at Hiroshima didn't reach Tokyo until the 10th, and by that point the Japanese government had already decided to surrender. Here's an argument for nuking Japan: They deliberately and unprovokedly attacked Pearl loving Harbor
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 16:38
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Here's an argument for nuking Japan: They deliberately and unprovokedly attacked Pearl loving Harbor Aww. Diddums. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 16:39
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:It absolutely does. Heroshima and Nagasaki were terrible - but as a bombing run on a city, they killed around as much as the firebombing of Toyko, maybe less. Pretty much. The Japanese had no way of knowing we couldn't equip every B29 with a nuke and send hundreds out on a sortie.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 16:39
|
|
|
I've actually always thought it was dumb to conflate the bombings as a single action when judging if they were warranted. The Nagasaki bombing always seemed harder to justify to me because of how quickly it followed Hiroshima: there's a much stronger argument that the Nagasaki bombing was unnecessary because the effects of Hiroshima had not yet had a chance to percolate through the government and (potentially) force a surrender. But for some reason - perhaps because of its much lower death toll - nobody really seems to pay attention to it and focuses instead only on Hiroshima.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 16:41
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Stop evading and answer the question. Both are bombs falling from bombers, both cause huge civilian deaths. I don't think x bad thing happened previously justifies y bad thing and I don't think anyone else does either. It's just a deflection.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 16:41
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Here's an argument for nuking Japan: They deliberately and unprovokedly attacked Pearl loving Harbor Reminder that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was an attack on a legitimate military target in colonially occupied territory which killed approximately 3% of the number just at Hiroshima, 2% of that number civilians
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 16:41
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:Killing civilians on an industrial scale with one weapon isn't any different than killing civilians on an industrial scale with hundreds or even thousands of weapons, and there wasn't a single major power in WW2 that didn't kill civilians on an industrial scale so why the gently caress are two cities being obliterated more important than all the other ones? I mean the only difference between Hiroshima and Nagasaki and every other city that was ground into dust in WW2 (Dresden, Nanking, Stalingrad, Osaka, Kassel, Darmstadt, Pforzheim, Swinoujscie, London, Berlin, Hamburg, Tokyo, ect, ect,) was that it only took one bomb a piece to do it. This boring question is asked and answered on every page: no one is arguing that the London Blitz or the Rape of Nanking was good so no one is arguing about it. People have said the firebombing of Tokyo was a war crime in this very thread though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 16:42
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Here's an argument for nuking Japan: They deliberately and unprovokedly attacked Pearl loving Harbor Aw, but why do you care? I bet Hawaii was one of those poo poo territories that didn't contribute to Democrats.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 16:42
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:Reminder that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was an attack on a legitimate military target in colonially occupied territory which killed approximately 3% of the number just at Hiroshima, 2% of that number civilians They attacked without declaring war. They were cowards who earned their nukings.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 16:43
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:I don't think x bad thing happened previously justifies y bad thing and I don't think anyone else does either. It's just a deflection. Alright, so strategic bombing with WW2 era (in)accuracy is morally wrong. At least you're consistent. How then should we have prosecuted the war, if at all?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 16:43
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:This boring question is asked and answered on every page: no one is arguing that the London Blitz or the Rape of Nanking was good so no one is arguing about it. To the extent of my understanding, the bombing of Dresden was also immoral.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 16:44
|
|
|
Chantilly Say posted:Aw, but why do you care? I bet Hawaii was one of those poo poo territories that didn't contribute to Democrats. I love America, god damnit. Why do you blame America for Japan's cowardly surprise attack? You go up to a vet of WW2 and tell them, "Pearl Harbor was a legitimate attack." I bet they'd sock it to ya, and loving rightfully so.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 16:44
|
|
|
Chantilly Say posted:To the extent of my understanding, the bombing of Dresden was also immoral. It is never immoral to burn nazis alive.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 16:44
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Alright, so strategic bombing with WW2 era (in)accuracy is morally wrong. At least you're consistent. There's a big moral difference between attacking military targets even though it's impossible to prevent civilian casualties and deliberately blowing up 250,000 people to terrorize the populace. These things aren't the same, and it is possible to agree one is necessary and not the other. "Well you didn't have zero civilian casualties so you might as well nuke a 100,000 women and children!"
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 16:45
|
|
|
If you really think more conventional bombs fell on industrial urban targets than civilian homes, etc etc and that's the distinction between regular bomber missions and a nuke, I don't know what to tell you. There was a reason they sent hundreds of bombers spread out over miles apart for years to have a chance at choking up Germany industry.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 16:47
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:They attacked without declaring war. As Israel has launched major sneak attacks on Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Gaza and Egypt at various points without declaring war do you think that justifies their nuking or does that boo hoo rationale disappear when bereft of self-justifying nationalist tribalism?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 16:47
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:There's a big moral difference between attacking military targets even though it's impossible to prevent civilian casualties and deliberately blowing up 250,000 people to terrorize the populace. These things aren't the same, and it is possible to agree one is necessary and not the other. There were no civilians in Japan. The Imperial government was attempting to mobilize women and children to carry out suicice attacks. By nuking them, we saved lives which mattered. Tezzor posted:As Israel has launched major sneak attacks on Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Gaza and Egypt at various points without declaring war do you think that justifies their nuking or does that boo hoo rationale disappear when bereft of self-justifying nationalist tribalism? loving liberals, you say "bombing japan won the war" and they cry about Israel. It's anti-semitic to bring Israel into a discussion of the US nuking of Japan.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 16:48
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I've actually always thought it was dumb to conflate the bombings as a single action when judging if they were warranted. The Nagasaki bombing always seemed harder to justify to me because of how quickly it followed Hiroshima: there's a much stronger argument that the Nagasaki bombing was unnecessary because the effects of Hiroshima had not yet had a chance to percolate through the government and (potentially) force a surrender. But for some reason - perhaps because of its much lower death toll - nobody really seems to pay attention to it and focuses instead only on Hiroshima. "It could not have been Nagasaki. The bombing of Nagasaki occurred in the late morning of August 9, after the Supreme Council had already begun meeting to discuss surrender, and word of the bombing only reached Japan’s leaders in the early afternoon — after the meeting of the Supreme Council had been adjourned in deadlock and the full cabinet had been called to take up the discussion. Based on timing alone, Nagasaki can’t have been what motivated them."
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 16:48
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:There's a big moral difference between attacking military targets even though it's impossible to prevent civilian casualties and deliberately blowing up 250,000 people to terrorize the populace. These things aren't the same, and it is possible to agree one is necessary and not the other. There was basically no such thing as a difference between military and civilian targets in WW2.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 16:48
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Alright, so strategic bombing with WW2 era (in)accuracy is morally wrong. At least you're consistent. The same way we did in reality, except minus the bombing? It's been established the bombing was not particularly effective in ending the war sooner if at all, so you're literally saying "you mean we can't just mass-murder civilians for no actual gain???  FUKKIN JAP-LOVER LIBERALS "
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 16:49
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:If you really think more conventional bombs fell on industrial urban targets than civilian homes, etc etc and that's the distinction between regular bomber missions and a nuke, I don't know what to tell you. There was a reason they sent hundreds of bombers spread out over miles apart for years to have a chance at choking up Germany industry. So what? It might be necessary to kill 1,000 people to blow up a tank factory and shorten the war. That doesn't mean you can go shoot a dozen POWs in the back of the head and say "well you killed 100 times more people yesterday what's the big deal"
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 16:50
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:It absolutely does. Heroshima and Nagasaki were terrible - but as a bombing run on a city, they killed around as much as the firebombing of Toyko, maybe less. No it doesn't. If the actual damage caused isn't even as large as one night of good ol' firebombing, why care about a nuke? It's no bigger threat than anything else, and the Japanese high command had already proved willing to endure the near-leveling of most major Japanese cities at this point. Again, we literally have the documentation here. The Japanese foreign minister wanted a meeting to discuss Hiroshima on the 8th of August, but the rest of the Supreme Council for the Direction of the War didn't think it was important enough to even have a meeting on the subject. How the gently caress are the nukes supposed to be the straw that broke the camel's back if the majority of the dudes running Japan considered them insignificant in the grand scheme of things? This makes no sense whatsoever, and the only way to think otherwise is by assuming that nukes were immediately viewed as some doomsday weapon different in kind from all others and not just very big bombs, which essentially is inserting our post-cold war understanding of nukes into 1945. I shouldn't need to explain why this is dumb. The actual reason that Japan decided to surrender was and still remains the USSR entering the war. Cerebral Bore fucked around with this message at 16:52 on Aug 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 16:50
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:It is never immoral to burn nazis alive. It is never immoral to burn Nazism as an ideology. Individual people you take or leave as you want, man. Shoot the SS, hang the leaders, whatever. You burn civilians and old buildings and you just make more urns and rubble.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 16:51
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:There were no civilians in Japan. The Imperial government was attempting to mobilize women and children to carry out suicice attacks. By nuking them, we saved lives which mattered. I asked you a simple question. Does Israel deserve to be nuked? I don't think it does, but it seems like the inescapable conclusion of what passes for your logic.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 16:51
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:If you really think more conventional bombs fell on industrial urban targets than civilian homes, etc etc and that's the distinction between regular bomber missions and a nuke, I don't know what to tell you. There was a reason they sent hundreds of bombers spread out over miles apart for years to have a chance at choking up Germany industry. Germany is an even worse case to argue in support of strategic bombing, because war production actually increased through the bombing campaigns through 1944
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 16:51
|
|
|
Chantilly Say posted:It is never immoral to burn Nazism as an ideology. Individual people you take or leave as you want, man. Shoot the SS, hang the leaders, whatever. You burn civilians and old buildings and you just make more urns and rubble. Let me ask you this: How many nazis did the firebombing of Dresden burn? I rest my case.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 16:52
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:So what? What the gently caress are you even trying to say?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 16:52
|
|
|
crabcakes66 posted:There was basically no such thing as a difference between military and civilian targets in WW2. There doesn't have to be, especially within the limits of the time's technology, but there often was.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 16:53
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:The alternative was accept a surrender offer. On the other hand, we have the reality of 4,000 man suicide charges and mass suicide among Japanese civilians and military.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 16:53
|
|
|
Job Truniht posted:The narrative I keep seeing in this thread is that bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki caused Japan to surrender. This is not true. It's not even remotely true. The times of when the bombs were dropped and when Japan agreed to surrender don't even match up. However, Stalin's invasion of Manchuria did cause Japan to surrender. This article is interesting. But there's one thing that makes it abundantly, obviously, flawed: it doesn't actually look at the surrender decision meetings, it doesn't consider the debates, it doesn't pay attention to a single thing said by the Japanese internally following the bombings. It relies entirely on ignoring, rather than crediting, the Japanese records of the internal debate to surrender. I have no doubt the USSR intervening was a gigantic worry for the Japanese - it's why getting the USSR to intervene was a major American priority. But if the Japanese government was coldly considering strategic realities they'd have surrendered well before: the Japanese strategic position was utterly untenable long before the USSR intervened and the Japanese knew it. That's not unique to the Japanese either: the Nazis were still fighting long after it was clear they lost, until the Nazi leadership either ate a bullet or fled after the fall of Berlin. Anyone who tried to surrender or flee before risked getting executed by the die-hards. The issue with surrender was never "well, what's the strategic considerations here, is victory still in sight". Victory was never in sight well before either the bombings or the USSR. It was if the pro-peace side could sieze control of the government. And even when they did surrender that was no sure thing: even after the bombings, even after the USSR entered the war, there was still an attempted coup by the military against the surrender.. And that's why the article is so badly flawed: it points to the reasons that it made sense for the Emperor to blame the surrender on the bombings. But that's precisely why the bombings mattered - they gave the pro-peace members of the government the chance to overthrow the war party. A mere worsening in the already hopeless strategic situation did not.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 16:54
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Germany is an even worse case to argue in support of strategic bombing, because war production actually increased through the bombing campaigns through 1944 The cliffs notes is that it's actually easy to argue that that was despite the bombing campaign and an impressive achievement for them, not a point against bombing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 16:56
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Germany is an even worse case to argue in support of strategic bombing, because war production actually increased through the bombing campaigns through 1944 How is that evidence of your case even if true?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 16:56
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:The alternative was accept a surrender offer. America did accept their surrender, just not on all their initial terms. lmao yea you can surrender AND keep all the stuff you conquered.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 16:56
|
|
|
crabcakes66 posted:What the gently caress are you even trying to say? He's saying that, in the context and timeframe of World War 2, violating the Geneva Convention by executing POWs is in no way comparable to strategic bombing, at the time. Post World War 2, views changed. Chantilly Say posted:The cliffs notes is that it's actually easy to argue that that was despite the bombing campaign and an impressive achievement for them, not a point against bombing. Pretty much. The fact that they managed to increase output was not so much due to a failure of the bombing campaign, but a testament to the resiliance of the German industry and people. The effects of the bombing campaign were very real regardless of output increases, because they were not able to make up the losses in the field. It was felt. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 17:00 on Aug 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 16:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 15:47 |
|
|
crabcakes66 posted:What the gently caress are you even trying to say? His argument is that bombing the German war industries killed more people than the nuclear attacks therefore you can't accept the former without accepting the latter. But this isn't true. It may be possible to justify destroying German industry despite the cost in lives, but that doesn't mean that anything you do to kill a smaller number of civilians is automatically justified. The bombing campaigns in Germany are just irrelevant to the discussion.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 16:58
|
|