Not a new revelation, but the article pulls from good sources and it's nice to see this myth repudiated in a mainstream outlet.
Shauns video "dropping the bomb" does a good job at going over this as well, if ya've got 2 hours.
This article references the existence of lots of alternatives for ending the war but doesn't identify any of them. Anyone know what other methods or paths specifically would have led to the war ending in just a few weeks and without an invasion of Japan, as mentioned in the article? Genuinely curious, not arguing the claim.
The Japanese were already negotiating to end the war. The sticking point was over the U.S. demand for unconditional surrender vs. the Japanese insistence on preserving their emperor in some form. The eventual surrender did keep the emperor, so the atomic bombs didn't impact that issue.
Vaporizing 200,000 civilians over semantics
JK it was to show the Soviets we had the bomb and were willing to use it
Both completely deranged sentiments
The Western Allies slowed their approach into Germany because it was agreed between them and the Soviet Union on what the occupation zones should have been prior to the invasion.
In a humanitarian gesture, should the Western Allies have accepted a German surrender in which Germany surrendered only on the condition that they would be occupied by the Americans?
Do you mean like from a moral perspective or from a self interest perspective? A surrender to the west and solely western occupation would not have been accepted by the soviets, with good reason.
Not to mention the fact that it would have been primarily soviets doing the land invasion, and the US didn't want to get beaten to the punch twice in a row.
That whole narrative smacks of racism and cowardice
"We had to kill 200k civilians or else we would have had to invade the mainland and risk the lives of our soldiers, who are expected to risk their lives. White lives matter. Anyway they were fanatical, the women would have hurled themselves off of cliffs, dashed their babies against rocks and even the children would have taken up bayonets. How many of our boys would have died? 200,000?
What nation is going to prefer the death of its own citizens over the death of civilians of a country they are at war with? Did the Soviet Union treat Nazi Germany with that kind of grace?
What nation is going to prefer the death of its own citizens over the death of civilians of a country they are at war with?
How else to interpret that? Were you suggesting Japan at the end of WW2 posed a risk to US civilians?
No. I said that a country is going to value the lives of its own people over the lives of others in making military decisions. This isn't just an American thing.
The Soviets might have actually been justified in dropping the bomb if they had it since the Nazis were fighting to exterminate them, something that can't be said of Japan towards America at any point, let alone near the end of the war, and don't tell me America even slightly cared about the Chinese being slaughtered or the Korean slaves they would blow to ash.
But the myth about the Soviets being especially cruel to the Nazis is one of many fascist myths propagated to reverse the roles of victim and genocidaire, let alone the idea that they did anything so cruel as eradicate the better part of two entire major cities of civilians along with most traces of their existence. There is no comparing the conduct of the two countries in WWII, and the fact that people believe the Soviets were substantially worse is a product of Cold War revisionism.
But the myth about the Soviets being especially cruel to the Nazis is one of many fascist myths propagated to reverse the roles of victim and genocidaire
I'm not talking about Soviets being especially cruel, but taking actions to preserve their own forces over protecting civilians of countries they were at war with.
I don't think you can really equivocate between "accepting that there will be civilians who die when you fire artillery at military targets" vs "vaporizing civilians by the tens of thousands in an instant to make a point".
It's also, again, completely false that the bombs even protected American soldiers, let alone anyone else.
I don't think you can really equivocate between "accepting that there will be civilians who die when you fire artillery at military targets" vs "vaporizing civilians by the tens of thousands in an instant to make a point".
It can when the numbers of casualties under your direct command number in the hundreds of thousands while the death rate of the belligerent side doesn't meaningfully change between the two options. A landing in Japan was never going to be as easy as the landing in Normandy, and the landing at Normandy was the most logically difficult of the war.
I think you've already been told this, but that's a false dichotomy based on bald-faced lies. Japan was already trying to conditionally surrender! Literally just take their offer and let them keep their stupid Emperor (which the US let them do anyway!) or wait a little and let the Soviets make more progress and see if that changes Japan's attitude at all. As someone else said, it's 200,000 mostly civilians dead over semantics and sticking it to the Reds. It is unjustifiable.
I think you've already been told this, but that's a false dichotomy based on bald-faced lies.
The three options were invasion, bombing until submission, and accepting a conditional surrender. Conditional surrender was off the table.
The US was already in the process of leveling Japanese cities due to strategic bombing and would have continued to do so if it didn't drop nuclear weapons. A blockade was also implemented, in part to starve the population into unconditional surrender.
It is funny how much anti-nuclear people focus on the dropping of two bombs when they were only a fraction of the total deaths caused. And try, those two bombs were a major part of the deliberations on the Japanese side when deciding to surrender in which we have first account records while the decision was being made.
Conditional surrender was off the table.
Why? You are accepting the framing of the US military when it is overwhelmingly obvious from how negotiations transpired after the bombs were dropped that there was no particular use for unconditional surrender! They still kept their Emperor! Again, it's 200,000 dead for semantics and sticking it to the Reds, and you clearly have no answer to that.
It is funny how much anti-nuclear people focus on the dropping of two bombs when they were only a fraction of the total deaths caused
"It is funny how" Yeah, I'm sure you're just rofling over firebombed slaves and children. People mainly focus on the bombs because the case of the bombs is extremely simple, as we've demonstrated in this conversation where you completely ignore the reality of the situation in favor of arbitrary axioms that question-beg your desired conclusions. I'm not in favor of how the US conducted most of the war against Japan, but that's a much larger topic that is tangential to the rest of the thread. Fighting a war against Japan was plainly justified, but the way the US approached it -- by annihilating as much of the population as it could manage both through indiscriminate bombing and, as you say, blockades that starved the population, served as a grim foreshadowing of what the US would do to Korea and then Vietnam.
I'm accepting the premise of the Allied powers including the Soviet Union. Japan had hoped that the Soviet Union would meditate a peace after the war with Germany given that the two countries made peace with each other in the 1941. There were even preliminary negotiations that the Soviet Union dragged on in July 1945. Then, the Soviet Union declared war on Japan roughly around the time that the bombs were dropped.
And Japan wasn't just arguing for the emperor. There were other conditions to the surrender, including no occupation and internally trying Japanese for was crimes instead of an international tribunal. Those conditions were unacceptable. By the time there was only one condition, an atomic bomb had been dropped.
I'm accepting the premise of the Allied powers including the Soviet Union.
This is nonsense when the SU was deliberately cut out of the deal anyway. Obviously the SU didn't want a Japan that didn't go through a de-fashifying process, but that's mostly what they got with the American occupation, which is how we got the modern liberal state that literally worships its fascist forebears and maintains an ethnonationalist ideology. I'm sure you don't need me to tell you about Unit 731 getting off scot-free or the rest of it.
Then, the Soviet Union declared war on Japan roughly around the time that the bombs were dropped.
This was not entirely a coincidence. Again, you are completely ignoring the significant "sticking it to the Reds" angle. A fantasy US that actually cared about sparing lives would allow the Soviet Union to begin its invasion to it and the SU can negotiate for conditional surrender that keeps the Emperor from a still-stronger position.
I don't know how to explain to you that the US was a deeply racist state that held Japanese lives to be subhuman to the point that they fully were non-factors in proceedings other than as a vector of attack to twist Japan's arm. See the Korean and Vietnam wars were there was also extensive reporting on the dehumanization of "g**ks" done by all facets of society, civilian and military.
By the time there was only one condition, an atomic bomb had been dropped.
Remind me, how strongly connected were these two events? Right at the end, as you have somewhat noted, many things were happening at once.
The most generous interpretation, which I don't uphold, still neglects that there was not only one bomb dropped and the second one has remained without even a gesture at justification.
If you're TRULY interested in a deep and nuanced take on this topic, here's a fantastic podcast on the topic that is MANY hours long. Personally, I don't see any better alternatives to the bombs to end the war quickly or to spare lives. And, as Dan Carlin explains, the Japanese have only themselves to blame for the perceptions of their people about Americans and the perspectives of Americans about them.
https://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-62-supernova-in-the-east-i/
If you’re truly interested in a deep and nuanced take on the topic, you’d read what actual historians (Carlin has often reiterated that he’s not one) have to say on the topic.
Carlin is a great host, don’t get me wrong. But just because he’s interesting to listen to doesn’t mean he’s always right, or that he should be taken more seriously than professionals.
I didn't say anything to suggest that he should be taken any more seriously than professionals. The point of my comment was to give people the opportunity to listen to someone who collates the information professional historians have offered in a cohesive manner, in context, with nuance, and in a way that the host is candid in describing his shortcomings in relating or understanding the information.
I think this topic is important to understand fully, and I offered a way to obtain more information that might be easier to digest and more complete than perhaps other sources.
“We HAD to drop the nukes on innocent people bro, it’s nuanced.
Nuclear hellfire incinerating infants spared lives”
Holy shit lmfao
Personally, I don’t see any better alternatives to the bombs to end the war quickly or to spare lives.
That puts you at odds with Curtis LeMay, who wanted to drop every bomb ever made. Even he said the atomic bombings weren't necessary.
And, as Dan Carlin explains, the Japanese have only themselves to blame for the perceptions of their people about Americans and the perspectives of Americans about them.
The gratuity of dropping the bombs has very little to do with what you mention and much more to do with trying to minimize the influence of the Soviet Union. Rhetoric about "sparing lives" is vile historical revisionism.
Also the phrasing of "the Japanese" being at fault and not their fascist government and its supporters is, uh, not a good look, but that's a tangential point.
Also the phrasing of "the Japanese" being at fault and not their fascist government and its supporters
This is an excellent thing to point out, and that was not the message I had hoped to convey. I was specifically referencing the Japanese government, not the general population of Japan. Thank you for pointing that out, and my apologies for not being more clear
I've listened to that podcast and Carlin's previous one about the decision to drop the bomb. I don't really recall Carlin saying that. Tbf Supernova in the East was massive so it's possible I don't remember the section you're talking about.
This is how I remember his series on the Japanese involvement in WWII:
Carlin talked about the Japanese military leaving gruesome "messages" (through terribly mutilated corpses of American soldier) to Americans, which in turn led Americans to take fewer POWs and also ramp up the violence. Additionally, this led to fewer Americans units who may have otherwise surrendered as POWs to continue fighting even if it meant they would all die; they were terrified to be captured. The Japanese military also knew what effect this must have on the Americans, and as a result would refuse to surrender in fear of similar treatment / reprisal.
Japanese soldiers would report this back home to their families. Combined with the propaganda civilians received from their government and the stories from the front, many people believed that when the Americans landed in Japan, that the soldiers would eat their children. It was because of this sentiment it was believed that the Japanese populace would never surrender, and the fighting on the Japanese islands would require killing far more people as the invasion progressed northward.
It is to be noted I am not a historian, and I'm just someone who listened to a really long podcast a couple years ago. He's more of an "historian" than I am, and he seemed pretty credible to me. I have done no other reading or research on the topic, and I probably shouldn't have commented here to begin with.
Dan Carlin has a great episode on the historical context behind the decision and how it was really the culmination of a series of - in my opinion - bad calls with regards to the acceptability of collateral damage in bombing by the US.
