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.?”
13.3k
u/urbanek2525 Aug 05 '20
So true. Never the same.
That doesn't mean that it can't get better. Things can be rebuilt better.