this post was submitted on 06 Aug 2023
133 points (98.5% liked)

World News

49099 readers
1334 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Mateoto@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Interestingly, it's still debated if it was necessary to drop not one but two awful bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

More left-wing positions argue Japan was already on the brink of surrendering. Here is one publication summing it up pretty well m:

As General Dwight Eisenhower said, Japan was at that moment seeking some way to surrender with minimum loss of face, and “it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.”

Saving face meant for one part of the Japanese military to keep the Emporer untouched. On the other hand, the Japanese military, contrary to the Japanese government:

[...]wanted to keep not just the emperor but to avoid an Allied occupation, disarmament, and war crimes trials.[...] They were determined to fight a final, all-out “decisive battle” to bleed the United States invaders until the Americans sued for peace.

We can at least say, whether you agree with the necessity of the use of atomic bombs on Japan, that humankind never again should make use of an atomic bomb.

Here is a GIF to remember (and look up the NSFW version of it...

https://gfycat.com/flusteredartisticjanenschia

[–] Noughmad@programming.dev 4 points 2 years ago

It is debated whether it was necessary, but the position that it was wrong is self-contradictory.

It assumes that the atomic bombs were not a huge factor in the decision to surrender, as they would surrender anyway due to conventional warfare (US bombing and USSR attacking and removing the best negotiating venue for a conditional surrender). Which might be true. But, at the same time it assumes that the nuclear bombs were somehow worse than the conventional bombing that has been going on. So the atomic bombs had to be both ineffectual and hugely damaging at the same time.