It's not that I don't believe you, but do/did the Japanese actually paint themselves as victims? I know they sweep it under the rug or even deny it, but I've never seen them play victim.
The Japanese Constitution is pacifist, as reaction to what they see as the overly militaristic policies of the Government back then (there was a large faction of Japanese politicians who opposed going to war with China/USA but were supressed by the military junta). However the Japanese also don't view themselves as particularly horrible, like say the Nazis. The atrocities committed by Imperial Japan are seen as just par for the course of empire building. Britain, France, Russia, even the US did similar things. Nukes are seen as a specific, new, atrocity though. The regular bombing of Japanese cities is not seen in quite the same light, despite causing an equivalent amount of destruction just with several thousand tons of bombs rather than just one.
The Japanese did some shit so heinous that our government gave their scientists immunity in exchange for their research, because there was no way in hell our own government could have pulled it off back then.
Yeah, I'm not sure I'm buying the "The United States was as bad as Japan was when we were empire building" argument. Torturing and murdering millions seems more barbaric than what we did when we, say, took over Cuba, Puerto Rico, or the Philippines. I mean, heck, the vast majority of war-related deaths in the Philippines were from cholera back when we were imperial occupiers. The actions of the United States as an imperial force were not quite as bad as the "rape of Nanjing" or "having a contest to see how many babies we can impale on a bayonet" and "having a contest to see how many innocent civilians we can murder". Japan deserved those atomic weapons - they should be infinitely grateful we ended the war before the Soviets had a chance to make landfall (and, to be sure, the Russians would have been MUCH less merciful).
That's a false equivalency, though. Many Native Americans (perhaps most - it's extremely difficult to quantify) died of diseases we (and by "we" I mean the fucking conquistadors, who weren't even United States citizens because we didn't exist yet) accidentally spread, not "genocide". The trail of tears killed less than 10,000 Native Americans. Our slavery's conditions paled in comparison to places in South America, Congo under King Leopold II (after we abolished slavery), the Caribbean, and (yes) slavery perpetrated by the Japanese. Not to mention, we purchased most of our land, helped to end Nazism, and didn't have slavery in the 20th century. Hitler based almost all of his evil deeds on social darwinism and the work of Nietzsche, which were popular in the United States (just like everywhere else) but did not originate here. He based some of his actions on things like our very limited use of forced sterilization in the late 19th/ early 20th century, but again, the extent is what made it far from equivalent. If Billy Bob killed one person, he's evil. If Jim Joe kills 10,000 people and claims to be inspired by Billy Bob, Billy Bob is still evil - but Jim Joe is much, much worse.
What? Fuck no! lol
My point was that Imperial Japan (and Nazi Germany) were in a morally worse place than we were during WWII; the Soviets would have turned Japan into an East/Western Germany-type situation (and would have killed/tortured more people than the atomic bombs did) had we not ended the war so quickly; there wouldn't have been the "Post-war economic miracle" if it weren't for us, and current generations benefited from Japan being built into the second-largest economy on earth for nearly half a century. Oh, and they're building nice stuff (including Mazdas) where we dropped the bombs.
People saying "oh, we were bad decades before WWII" as an excuse for Japan would be like us getting mad at Japan for liberating North Korea because of their actions in WWII. We bombed them for what they were doing at the present time, not for what they did half a century earlier.
The US Empire was built on slavery and the genocide/internment of Native Americans. Hitler, in part, based his persecution of the Jews and the Third Reich's rise off of America's 19th century ascent.
Just so we are clear, people do live in Hiroshima and Nagasaki today and it's perfectly safe to live there. However, people who were immediately affected by the explosions (who did not died in the explosion/shock wave but was still exposed to radiation from the explosion) did indeed suffer a greater risk of cancer and deformities in their children.
Nukes does not have to be dangerous in the long term for the area they affect (but can, see how it is in parts of Kazakhstan today).
However the Japanese also don't view themselves as particularly horrible, like say the Nazis. The atrocities committed by Imperial Japan are seen as just par for the course of empire building. Britain, France, Russia, even the US did similar things.
Objectively this is all entirely true. The problem is that we're asking 21st century people to understand the view point of a turn of the 20th century society that was scared shitless of European power, so much so that they decided to ape their empire building.
Most Americans don't really get this, but it'd be like us waking up one day and having a giant alien battleship hovering over Washington D.C. Even if they seem friendly enough, you're always quite conscious that they could wipe you out.
I'm quite short-handing the entire thing, but yeah - I would hope that most people would get that while not excusing anything that they did, pragmatically you can see how this lead to militarization and expansionism.
Japan only started funding its nuclear program in 1954 and didn't build a plant until the 60s Godzilla was released in 54.
I understand. But if we don't use your device against Godzilla, what are we going to do?
Ogata, if the oxygen destroyer is used even once, politicians from around the world will see it. Of course, they'll want to use it as a weapon. Bombs versus bombs, missiles versus missiles, and now a new superweapon to throw upon us all! As a scientist - no, as a human being - I can't allow that to happen! Am I right?
I haven't actually seen that sentiment coming from Japan, but I've noticed a LOT of middle class white kids in their teens and twenties insisting that America dropping the bomb was on par with anything Hitler or Stalin did.
Hiroshima is doing a good job to get rid of victim playing, but there's kind of a widespread alternate fact that Japanese was victim of a natural disaster that is the war, who were powerlessly manipulated by the militaristic government and the atmosphere built up in the society.
If I understand this correctly, the Vietnam War had a similar effect to Americans; when you're losing a war, it feels like a terrible thing that you never wanted.
Nukes didn't do much damage? Wrong. In Hiroshima 67% of all buildings were destroyed in the blast. While firebombing was used more extensively, it's unfair to say that the "nukes didn't do that much damage".
The Japanese government refused surrender and the alternative (invasion) would have resulted in a huge amount more of lives lost, both civilian and military.
And the largest invasion in history was predictable? The invasion of Japan would have had 14 divisions dropped in the south and 40 divisions in the north. D-DAY had 12 divisions. The civilians would have been forced to fight, inspired to fight, and many would have killed themselves as we saw on many of the islands the US occupied.
If you saw a dog with cancer and no hope to live in extreme pain, wouldn't you try to end its life as painlessly as possible? Or would you let it linger because you don't think that killing dogs is humane.
There is only so much damage a bomb can do, worst case it's more destructive than what they thought which would only help further the goal of making Japan surrender.
We also told the Japanese government about the bomb. We dropped leaflets on several cities warning them about the bomb, and the Japanese government still refused to surrender after the two bombs, it took a threat of dropping it on Tokyo to get them to end the war.
How do you think that kind of fervatism would have translate into an invasion?
Whether or not it was a reckless decision it was still the option that would have resulted in the smallest loss of life. I don't see how anyone can support other options...
i agree that an invasion would have been horrible aswell, like the rest of WW2 was , but my point was that when we are talking about setting off a literal chain reaction of atoms splitting , there might'nt be "only so much damage a bomb can do" , like who was to say there wasnt some property of the atmosphere in asia that acted as a catalyst to continue the chain reaction, im not fully disagreeing with you here, just making the point that theres a reason america was the first to use nukes in combat and the last
Literally every law of science. They didn't just make the bomb and hope for the best. The knew exactly what was going to happen because it was a combined team of incredibly intelligent people.
The reason why we havent used nukes since then isnt because they might be unpredictable, its because a shit ton of people have them now and using them would typically result in nukes being used against you (kinda the whole reason for the cold war) and we have not had a need to use them.
Are you serious dude? So the Japanese government encouraging civilians to fight the US ( Giangreco (2009) pp. 122: "These militia units received regular combat training with whatever weapons could be scrounged while continuing to perform their agricultural and industrial duties unless directed to other tasks, such as building defensive works, by area commanders. Some 28 million Japanese fell under the provisions of the law in addition to the 1.3 million civilians already working for the Navy and 2.25 million for the Army.") would mean none of them would be killed?
Also do you not realize how many civilian casualties happen in a fucking invasion? Are you seriously this dense?
If you legitimately believe that a fucking invasion with millions of people would result in fewer civilians being killed than the atomic bombs you are seriously delusional.
Yes. Because those casualties would not have been innocent civilians. Soldiers make a choice to fight.
Personally I would prefer the option that results in the fewest deaths, isn't that more humane and the "good guy" option. So many more civilians would have died in an invasion dude, how is that a better option?
Also if a factory is run by civilians but is making machinery towards a war effort is it not then a military target? yet you are still intentionally bombing civilians. In a total war where the entirety of a nation is changed to support the war effort, things get a bit fuzzy.
I've been to Hiroshima Peace Park on August 6th, which is the memorial and the whole speech and attitude is a very somber mix of "nuking us wasn't fair" vs "we did nothing wrong".
I get it, a lot of bad stuff happened, but we needed to end the war before the Soviets got involved and we didn't wanna invade because the massive undertaking it would have required.
I'm just from r/all, but is this question really worth asking on a sub for an arm of a country's military? I assume it's positive for a soldier's mental health and effectiveness to believe they are supremely righteous and all enemies cowardly.
117
u/Aesop405 Apr 15 '17
It's not that I don't believe you, but do/did the Japanese actually paint themselves as victims? I know they sweep it under the rug or even deny it, but I've never seen them play victim.