Opinion: U.S. leaders knew we didn't have to drop atomic bombs on Japan to win the war. We did it anyway
www.latimes.com
We've been taught that the U.S. had to drop atomic bombs on Japan to end World War II. Historical evidence shows Japan would have surrendered anyway.
  • CCCP Enjoyer@lemmygrad.mlEnglish
    13·
    3 months ago

    Weird seeing US media finally come out and halfway say this considering how many articles I’ve read that try to deny it. In all my life I’ve met only a handful of americans who didn’t think using nuclear weapons to mass-murder civilians was ‘necessary bECAuSe BuSHiDo’ or some stupid fucking shit. When you talk with americans about the fact that the US knew Japan’s surrender was already in progress and this grandfather of warcrimes was done just to prevent surrender to the Soviets (essentially just violent anti-communism), psycho burgerland fucks still defend the atrocity.

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmygrad.mlOP
      9·
      3 months ago

      Yeah, it’s not the sort of admission I ever expected to see in US media either. Handy for talking to libs since it’s the only sort of source they’ll consider.

  • crystaline_porpoise [none/use name]@hexbear.netEnglish
    11·
    3 months ago

    Every now and then I go back and rewatch Shaunvid’s 3 hour video essay on this. It’s really well done. Would recommend.

    Also god damn, really says everything about both capitalist bloodlust and us-foreign-policy that the term “humane” is attached to the idea of nuking civilians. As long as it’s a western country doing it, of course!

  • Addfwyn@lemmygrad.ml
    9·
    3 months ago

    This is, impressively, one of the better takes I have seen on the nuclear bombings from US media. Usually the takes I see are something along the lines of “Actually it was more humane, because we would have had to kill more civilians if we invade them! or something”. They even hit on some key elements that are often overlooked in western coverage, like the fact that pinning it on the nuclear bombs gave Japanese leadership an easy scapegoat.

    It does glance over the fact that the US probably wanted to use the bombs, if for no other reason than a show of force to the USSR.

    The biggest impetus for Japan’s surrender was the Soviet invasion of Manchuria. We can see this very easily from the timeline. The first bomb landed on August 6th, the second on August 9th. The meeting of the supreme council to discuss surrender started on the morning of August 9th, starting before the second bombing. The second bomb can be assumed to not have prompted the surrender meeting, though it very well may have come up during that meeting later on. Communication wasn’t as fast then as now, but I can’t imagine waiting three days from the first bomb to starting a meeting about it either. What did occur right before that meeting was the USSR attacking Japan, taking any hope of the USSR mediating more favorable surrender terms off the table.

    While Japan was pretty much defeated prior to the USSR entering the conflict, the fact that the USSR did probably saved a lot of lives. Could have been even more if the US weren’t so eager to test their new weapons.