Nothing happy could come out from any of it.
ok just so we are clear that you are happy with the entire country being destroyed and even more civilians dying than under the bombs
Nothing happy could come out from any of it.
Of course not. Hence the lesser of the two. both choice have terrible terrible consequences. So you pick the lesser one of a terrible terrible choice
There are other options than to invade Japan or nuke it, you know.
There are other options than to invade Japan or nuke it, you know.
Wait, how was he the polar opposite of a fascist? He fit pretty much every characteristic of a fascist.
It's of my opinion that soldiers have made the decision to get involved, to kill or be killed. They are aware of the dangers and they are dangers to their enemies themselves. An American soldier probably shouldn't be afraid of his own country getting invaded by the japanese, but that's beside my main point. Civilians have chosen to stay uninvolved, the opposite with the soldiers, thus I feel that when it comes to a bombing civilians are less deservant of dying.
Such as? Starving them out?
Yes.
Fascism is extreme right.
So what if they make the decision, on what basis do you judge a person's right to live and die by what they legally take part in. Every single life is equal until you infringe on other's human rights which take yours. A soldier doesn't infringe on anyone, it's the politician who orders him. You can make the assumption that a soldier's life is worth less on the fact that they're violent, I can make the assumption that a person's life could be judged by their courage. A civilian is perfectly willing to let a soldier die for them, without the courage to do the same back for their country like the soldier did for their country.
Cutting off supply lines, yes. Or try to negotiate peace. Or threat them.
the deal had nothing to do with the surrender. they had not spoken to the americans at that point.
So bombing 250k civilians is worse than sending the troops in and watching 1.5 million soldiers and civilans die (the majority of causalties being civilans)
Cutting off supply lines, yes. Or try to negotiate peace. Or threat them.
So if you were in a room with a military leader, and you had 1.75m people in another room. If the military leader said he was fine with committing just 250k to die, as long as you were willing to tell them that YOU made the choice to sentence the 1.5m to death rather than save them? Right. The 250k casualties of war either way, why needlessly add 1.25m to that number?
have you read any of the thread? or followed japan during the war. There was no negotiating with them. This was put to the Japanese before the bombings It took two of the deadliest weapons the world has ever seem to bring them to hesistate. Even them the generals wanted to fight, and they tried to organise a coup d'etat so they could keep fighting.
They had spoken to the Soviets, who were neutral to them at that time, to mediate with the americans. After the bombings Hirohito insisted on the imperial institution being preserved if Japanas was to surrender, otherwise the war could've continued.
Except the Japanese sense of honour would just mean they'd die slowly from hunger rather than surrender. The Japanese wouldn't sue for peace: they were determined to go down fighting. And how do you threaten the Japanese? "Ooh look watch out or we'll come and invade you"? They were EXPECTING that!
Because purposely murdering civillians is wrong. None of these people did anything, yet they have to burn up, or be forced to live a handicapped life without children, or with deformed children.
I put forward two other options aswell. Always worth a shot to negotiate.
Because purposely murdering civillians is wrong. None of these people did anything, yet they have to burn up, or be forced to live a handicapped life without children, or with deformed children.
I put forward two other options aswell. Always worth a shot to negotiate.
Nuclear weapons, and it worked. Just make it work without performing calculated murder on hundreds of thousands.
Hirohito didnt want the war to go on, its hardly a selfish point. He didnt want more shame on Japan. It was bad enough they surrendered, to do that it would have meant they had been vanquished. Emperors in Japan had an almost god-like status. It would have ripped the heart out the country and the people would not have accepted that.
The word would've continued if the allies didn't concede that. Either way, what's done is done, all we can do right now is speculate.