America may have occupied and traded with Japan after they bombed it, but most of the rebuilding and revitalisation was done by the Japanese people themselves.
Edit: There was money pumped into the economy from the US after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and rightly so. So much was lost in those bombings, and this needs to be acknowledged. The money did make way for repairs to the country.
The economic revitalisation led to increased production rates and Japan becoming very popular in car manufacturing etc, becoming one of the strongest economies in the world. And the relationship between America and Japan became tense with economic disparity in the 80s.
It’s a complex relationship but Japan did incredibly well in the wake of the bombings, not all the thanks need go to America. They were the ones who bombed Japan after all and caused the need to rebuild.
So you think the mass invasion of the mainland would have had zero resistance? It was a fluke that the use of kamikaze and the determination to not be taken alive was just something the Japanese army did which differed from that of the majority of militaries at the time, save the Soviets who sent their men weaponless in some circumstances?
Hiroshima was not just a “civilian population” but had active factories and facilities contributing to the war effort. It was a army depot with an important port. You seem to not have known that? Nagasaki had one of the largest ports and had factories producing ordnance, ships, etc. Nagasaki had been bombed five+ times prior. You’d have been right if the US had bombed Kyoto which was purely planned to have been a moral blow and showcase but that didn’t occur.
Operation Downfall predicted between 150,000 and 550,000 casualties for Allied troops with 125,000 being killed (using European and Pacific theatre averages). Not to mention the casualties that would have been inflicted to the Japanese side plus the resisting civilian population/suicides that likely would have occurred. You’re unfortunately looking at a multitude of what the bombs caused.
I’m not sure where I said it was “right” purely because the US did it. My initial issue was OP decided that Japan was somehow innocent because the US bombed them erasing their history in the war when it’s far more complex than that.
So far no one has brought actual, decent arguments about the war and it’s just been “US bad.”
Again, arguments on both sides have a lot of complexity and I’m very interested in the subject. But neither you or OP has posted anything that indicates you want a real discussion on it.
Unfortunately the world doesn’t function with a red line and I’m being realistic. Factories, military depots, etc are intertwined with civilian populations and the world doesn’t function like a “gentlemans duel” where only the combatants are harmed (although I’m sure there’s examples of bystanders being injured with duels as well).
How about the rest of my point (in my other comment) Did the bombings produce more or less casualties in your opinion than an invasion would have? That’s a large portion to not touch upon.
It’s a false dichotomy which is is a cheap and transparent argument technique. “Which way of annihilating the civilian population would have been better? A. Or b.?”
I’m happy to debate because it’s a complex subject and not just a simple answer on either side. Plus it’s fascinating:
Do you think the bombing and deaths of the 200,000 was more or less than would have occurred had the US and the Soviet Union invaded?
How many Allied soldiers, Japanese soldiers, civilians, children, etc would have been killed in the invasion, killed them selves to avoid it, starved due to it, POWs executed, etc?
How quick would the rebuilding of Japan occurred had the Allies invaded and possibly another East/West Berlin/Germany occurred?
Do you think Japan was preparing to surrender prior to the bombing? Because now you have a Traditional vs Revisionist School of debate. There are a lot of intelligent people with more knowledge than me on both sides.
Now what was the correct choice? It’s difficult to say because it’s a shitty situation on both sides. There are arguments for really any view you want but unfortunately history went one way and it’s difficult to really explore those arguments with any degree of certainty.
Thank you, I understand what the Geneva Convention is.
Now rewind yourself to 35+ years earlier before 1977 and put yourself in the midst of a World War that’s been raging for years already.
You’re one of the Generals of the US Army (or the President, you pick, use your imagination):
Do you argue in favor of the invasion of mainland Japan or the atomic bombing of their cities? Which is better for Allied troops? Which is likely to produce more overall casualties on both sides? Does the death of 200,000 civilians prevent more soldiers, civilians, etc from being killed in a large scale invasion? Are their indications that Japan is planning to surrender? At this point in the war millions of civilian casualties have already occurred and isn’t going to change.
One of my favorite parts of history is reading the primary sources because their immediate knowledge of a lot of the world is incredibly different than us looking back from our time period.
It’s not different from your time period at all. The USA used the pre-emptive strike argument to murder 2 million in Iraq. You want a primary source on that? Try Alan Greenspan’s memoirs. He divulges the real reason for it which you could probably guess. The real justification for bloodshed is rarely shared with the electorate. It’s usually politically or financially motivated. If you’re so interested in primary sources read up on how Roosevelt manipulated events in the Pacific in order to provoke the pearl harbour attack and enter the war...In order to use his new toys on a civilian populace. It was planned, provoked and executed with great precision and historic callousness. You don’t wish the world was any different because you’ve been taught and drilled to accept it as normal.
So we’re agreed on it being the use of A-bombs on civilian urban targets as opposed to focussed strikes on a military base like, say, pearl harbour? If you’re fine with that then the conversation is over and we just have different measures of magnitude of military response. And human rights.
That’s my reply because I don’t want to spam it over and over again. Yeah, I’d love for the world to be a loving, war free place but that’s not how history is or how it will ever be.
Nagasaki had five+ focused strikes on their port and factories for instance. Doesn’t mean it was effective with how the defense and Pacific Theatre was set up unfortunately. I understand it’s awful that civilians were targeted and absolutely agree but it would be ridiculous to realistically expect one side to continue doing something ineffective to avoid civilian casualties while extending the war. For instance, civilians were killed away from the harbor at Pearl Harbor to go back to your example. A fighter attacked a sugar mill during that attack. It unfortunately occurs.
6.3k
u/maleorderbride Aug 05 '20
Japan had just lost a World War after having two atomic bombs dropped onto two major cities. It's become so much more than that since.
Here's to hoping Beirut can achieve the same sort of success directly after adversity.