Comment by the_af
5 days ago
> But we are talking about World War II, and a war in which the United States and Japan fought, with millions of casualties. Pardon me if I'm not particularly interested in what someone from South America thinks about saving American lives by using a weapon we had to stop a war that we didn't start.
This is not an argument for "civilization", so it's very hard to follow your point.
If you don't care what I think, why bother debating with me at all?
> I don't think the numbers matter and shifting around from 50,000 to 5 million or anywhere in proximity to those numbers doesn't change the categorical argument.
On the contrary, it does change the categorical debate because the original argument ("it also saved Japanese lives") depended on those numbers. You seem to want to argue about something unrelated to what I said?
> Japan could have surrendered and then it wouldn't have been used.
It has been argued quite convincingly, multiple times already, that the Bomb would have been used nonetheless. The effort to develop it had been made, now they wanted to use it on real population centers. They were biased and primed to action. Also, it was done to send a message to the Soviets (the Japanese to this day maintain this, and while you could convincingly argue their opinion is self-serving, so is the US's).
None of this has much to do with Operation Downfall or whether Japan wanted to surrender (there were a pro and anti surrender factions, and the hardliners could maybe have been appeased. Or not. It's not self-evident there was no other way.)
More importantly, this is not a valid argument if we're going to argue about civilization. If you want to make a separate argument, go ahead, but that's not what I was reacting to.
Also, preempting your likely "I don't care about civilization": if you don't, why are you arguing in a thread precisely about this?
> "The US didn't do anything [in WW2]"
Puzzling strawman. Did I say this?
> "The Soviets were the good guys fighting the good fight against the Nazis".
I'm struggling to see the connection here. Was it because I mentioned the Bomb was also signalling to the Soviets? But that'd be true regardless.
> For example, a lot of folks will claim things like the Soviets bore the brunt of the war
They did.
> it was the Soviets who helped Germany kick this thing off by illegally invading and partitioning Poland
That's a very simplistic take, but I suspect you aren't interested in more nuanced takes. There's a lot to read on this matter.
> So... maybe those 40 million deaths were deserved
Wow. Just wow.
> I wouldn't care what you thought? In wartime, as an American, our soldier's lives are worth more than any enemy lives.
Why argue with me? You obviously care. Also, "our soldier's lives are worth more" is an argument, but not one out of civilization, which is what we were debating. As in "dropping the Bomb was a civilized option because [...]".
> But if you want to insist you think your countrymen's lives
I was just telling you how you sound when you say "our lives matter more..." as if everyone here was US American.
> This is not an argument for "civilization", so it's very hard to follow your point.
I don't know what you're talking about anymore with this. Can you elaborate?
> If you don't care what I think, why bother debating with me at all?
You keep replying.
> On the contrary, it does change the categorical debate because the original argument ("it also saved Japanese lives") depended on those numbers. You seem to want to argue about something unrelated to what I said?
If it saved Japanese lives that just makes it all the better, if it didn't, it doesn't matter. I think you're just not understanding the point. You're trying to make this calculation about how many lives equivalent to a moral choice made by the United States and Japan in the conduct of their war. I reject the calculation of the numbers of lives saved.
> On the contrary, it does change the categorical debate because the original argument ("it also saved Japanese lives") depended on those numbers. You seem to want to argue about something unrelated to what I said?
That's not convincing at all. If Japan had formally surrendered the United States would have not then, post-surrender gone and dropped an atomic bomb on a Japanese city. You're crazy if you think that is the case. There is no room for debate here and nothing you can say, including showing me letters, papers, whatever will change my mind. I'm close-minded to that idea.
> Puzzling strawman. Did I say this?
> I'm struggling to see the connection here. Was it because I mentioned the Bomb was also signalling to the Soviets? But that'd be true regardless.
Nope, not puzzling. It's just a common theme. It's always "question the United States actions", "talk about the United States", "the United States is bad and does bad things all the time" and saying things like the US would have dropped an atomic bomb on Japan after it formally surrendered is aligned with the same kinds of things people say about the Soviets or whatever. It's just the same playbook of anti-Americanism propaganda that serves just one purpose which is to make people in the United States (and honestly the west in general) want to withdraw from the world and let autocrats and their toads take over.
The common themes are:
You hear this all the time on the Internet. It's just recycling of effective propaganda campaigns leveraged against the west. Soviets good, West worked with Nazis, West didn't do anything, bombing Japan to end the war is immoral, blah blah blah
> That's a very simplistic take, but I suspect you aren't interested in more nuanced takes.
Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact. I'd encourage you to read up more on the Soviet - Nazi alliance. Both governments were evil. The Soviets got what they asked for by trusting the Nazis and invading and annexing another country. While there is undoubtedly nuance to that arrangement, at a high level the Communists and Nazis got together and decided to start partitioning Europe.
Rejecting this is like the whole "clean Wehrmacht" thing or how Rommel was a "good general" since he wasn't in Europe. No, both groups were just as bad as the Nazi regime they fought for.
> Also, "our soldier's lives are worth more" is an argument, but not one out of civilization, which is what we were debating. As in "dropping the Bomb was a civilized option because [...]".
You are implying that the Japanese were civilized at this time.
> I was just telling you how you sound when you say "our lives matter more..." as if everyone here was US American.
I know how I sound. Our soldiers lives do matter more than the lives of enemy soldiers. In the case of the war against Japan they mattered much more than Japanese lives, soldiers or otherwise. I know you think this is some sort of controversial thing to say, but this seems rather routine to me.
> I don't know what you're talking about anymore with this. Can you elaborate?
Yes you do. I explained it multiple times already. If you don't, I suggest you pay more attention instead of replying to comments you admit you don't understand.
> You keep replying.
You claimed you didn't care about my opinion, yet here you are. Why? Sport?
> I reject the calculation of the numbers of lives saved.
Thanks for the straight answer. However, the person I was replying to didn't reject the calculation, which is why they mentioned it, and this is what I challenged. Clearer now?
> Nope, not puzzling. It's just a common theme. It's always "question the United States actions", "talk about the United States", "the United States is bad and does bad things all the time"
That's your own baggage. Argue with the things I actually said, not with "common themes". You seem to be upset about things I haven't argued, at least not here. I cannot be held responsible for whatever irks you on the internet, much like I cannot be upset at you for whatever BS Trump or the alt-right spews.
> Soviets good, West worked with Nazis, West didn't do anything, bombing Japan to end the war is immoral, blah blah blah
I don't know your internet circles, but most of what I hear is "America won WW2", "Soviets are as evil as Hitler", etc.
> Both are untrue and are derived from Russian/Chinese propaganda schemes to sow self-doubt and defeatism for their own benefit.
No... I suggest you read "The Myth of the Eastern Front" (2008) by American historians Ronald Smelser and Edward J. Davies, which is a scholarly work (well regarded and widely referenced and cited) that describes among other things American shifting views on WW2's Eastern Front (as well as documenting the "Clean Wehrmacht" myth, and others). These are not Russian/Chinese infiltrators, but well regarded American scholars.
What you identify as "revisionism" is actually a shift away from German-dictated histories of WW2, and towards a more balanced view.
> Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact. I'd encourage you to read up more on the Soviet - Nazi alliance.
I expected you to extend me the courtesy of assuming I knew about Molotov-Ribbentrop. Like I said, there were nuances to the situation, even mentioned "there's a lot to read on the subject". I assume you don't care -- or you think anyone who disagrees with any action of the US is simply ill-informed or Russian/Chinese influenced -- but there are nuances on this topic (e.g. how the USSR foresaw war with Nazi Germany, how it sought an anti-German pact with the UK and France which was rejected). But I won't be dragged into defending the Soviets or whatever when it has very little to do with the original topic.
> You are implying that the Japanese were civilized at this time.
Well, they were in some sense and they were barbaric in others (ironically this is what the OP claimed of the Bombs!). But let's take it for granted that the Japanese were pretty savage towards the people they invaded: even then, your own civilization doesn't depend on your foe's. It's an inherent trait.
I know this may be hard to grasp when following your "us vs them" logic.
> I know how I sound
Apparently not; you don't seem aware of how jingoistic you sound. Or that when you say "our", this being a relative word, it pays to know your audience who may or may not be "yours".
> Yes you do. I explained it multiple times already. If you don't, I suggest you pay more attention instead of replying to comments you admit you don't understand.
Ok. I don't understand I guess. Whatever :)
> You claimed you didn't care about my opinion, yet here you are. Why? Sport?
I'm here for a broader audience to read. Do you care about my opinion?
> Thanks for the straight answer. However, the person I was replying to didn't reject the calculation, which is why they mentioned it, and this is what I challenged. Clearer now?
But I was replying and rejecting the calculation because the calculation doesn't matter, at least in my opinion. Again if 1 American life was saved it was worth it and Civilized so it isn't relevant whether 50,000 lives were saved (Japanese, American, otherwise) or 5,000,000.
> That's your own baggage. Argue with the things I actually said, not with "common themes". You seem to be upset about things I haven't argued, at least not here.
Nope. I know what you're doing because it's a common pattern and the same tropes are repeated. Even in this very article you're defending the Soviets illegally partitioning and invading Poland alongside the Nazis as "nuanced".
> I don't know your internet circles, but most of what I hear is "America won WW2", "Soviets are as evil as Hitler", etc.
Well the Soviets were quite evil. That's a simple fact and we can state that up front.They were arguably more evil than the Nazis over the long term but still categorically evil so it doesn't quite matter just who is winning the evil Olympics.
I don't know where you hear America "won" World War II. Vast majority of Americans accept and understand that the Soviets fought the Germans in the east which was hugely important for defeating the Nazis. While the United States fought Japan in the Pacific which was also incredibly important. There's a common phrase here in the United States that the war was won with Soviet Blood, British Intelligence, and American Steel.
> I expected you to extend me the courtesy of assuming I knew about Molotov-Ribbentrop. Like I said, there were nuances to the situation, even mentioned "there's a lot to read on the subject".
But at the end of the day, the broader actions are what matter, not the nuance. I can't tell if you are familiar with Molotov-Ribbentrop because your previous comments seem to be aghast that I suggested the Soviets, who helped kick off the war, deserved what happened to them.
> I assume you don't care -- or you think anyone who disagrees with any action of the US is simply ill-informed -- but there are nuances on this topic (e.g. how the USSR foresaw war with Nazi Germany,
I think people who repeat obviously untrue things, like suggesting the US would have dropped atomic bombs on Japan just to test them after Japan surrendered, don't debate in good faith and are also ill-informed.
> how it sought an anti-German pact with the UK and France which was rejected).
Nuance right? Or does that only count when it's the Soviets?
> Well, they were in some sense and they were barbaric in others. But let's take it for granted that the Japanese were pretty savage towards the people they invaded: your own civilization doesn't depend on your foe's. It's an inherent trait.
> I know this may be hard to grasp when following your "us vs them" logic.
Sure. I declare we are civilized because we bombed Japan and turned them into a peaceful democracy. During a war, it is us versus them. This is basic stuff. There's nothing we need to take for granted about the Japanese. They were rampaging, murdering lunatics. Korea, China, the Philippines, Malaysia, and more suffered under their brutal regime of violence and repression.
> Apparently not; you don't seem aware of how jingoistic you sound. Or that when you say "our", this being a relative word, it pays to know your audience who may or may not be "yours".
Nope, I'm pretty aware. My audience isn't you, it's other readers who happen to stumble upon your argument. If they think I sound overly-Patriotic because I reject your claims, so be it. My opinion doesn't change because you don't like it.
By the way, you said you're not American. What country are you from?
5 replies →