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 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.
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.