• boywar3@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      I mean, sure it’s horrible, but again, understanding the context behind decisions is important to getting a full idea of why something was done.

      Take something like strategic bombing, which killed more people by a country mile than the atomic bombings. Does anyone bitch on the same level about how many people were killed by regular bombing? Hell, Operation Meetinghouse (the firebombing of Toyko in March 1945) killed something like 150k people in a single raid, and nobody says a goddamned word about it outside of historical circles.

      At the end of the day, the idea behind strategic bombing (in the case of the Allies) was that it was a good way to damage the enemy’s war effort. The killing of civilians wasn’t the objective (unlike the Germans, who explicitly employed terror bombing of civilians as a tactic). Its the cold calculus of fighting a modern war - the enemy’s capacity to fight is the ability for them to make more things to fight with, so eliminating that capacity by demolishing factories and houses is a good strategy. The killing of civilians wasn’t the objective necessarily - breaking the apparatus they participated in was.

      In some ways it’s actually better to simply leave millions homeless instead of killing them, as the enemy must house and feed these people instead of using those resources for fighting…

      Either way, would you have rather the US blockaded Japan to death to force a surrender? Killing untold numbers of civilians from starvation and disease than a relatively small number of civilians in 2 places? Maybe we wouldn’t have needed to if the Russian invasion was enough to scare them into surrender, but we’ll never know that for sure…

      What would you have done against an enemy that gave every indication they were planning to fight to the death?

      • Eyck_of_denesle@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        7 months ago

        Does anyone bitch on the same level about how many people were killed by regular bombing?

        Yes?

        The killing of civilians wasn’t the objective

        It literally was? They could’ve chosen an isolated place to bomb but they strategically made decisions to highlight the impact of the bomb. To clearly depict the before and after.

        Wow. A lot of this is just made up bs.

        What would you have done against an enemy that gave every indication they were planning to fight to the death?

        Idk personally. I’m not that educated in this topic.

        • boywar3@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          I’d like to see the amount of discourse surrounding strategic bombing compared to the atomic bombings for average people. There aren’t any movies today talking about how horrific the normal bombing campaigns were, whereas this entire thread is dedicated to a recently released film about the Manhattan project…

          As for an isolated place, well, they thought about that:

          It was evident that everyone would suspect trickery. If a bomb were exploded in Japan with previous notice, the Japanese air power was still adequate to give serious interference. An atomic bomb was an intricate device, still in the developmental stage. Its operation would be far from routine. If during the final adjustments of the bomb the Japanese defenders should attack, a faulty move might easily result in some kind of failure. Such an end to an advertised demonstration of power would be much worse than if the attempt had not been made. It was now evident that when the time came for the bombs to be used we should have only one of them available, followed afterwards by others at all-too-long intervals. We could not afford the chance that one of them might be a dud. If the test were made on some neutral territory, it was hard to believe that Japan’s determined and fanatical military men would be impressed. If such an open test were made first and failed to bring surrender, the chance would be gone to give the shock of surprise that proved so effective. On the contrary, it would make the Japanese ready to interfere with an atomic attack if they could. Though the possibility of a demonstration that would not destroy human lives was attractive, no one could suggest a way in which it could be made so convincing that it would be likely to stop the war.

          The key takeaway here is that they were unconvinced the Japanese military would react to anything else.

          If the Allies wanted to kill more civilians with bombings, why did they drop millions of leaflets into cities urging people to evacuate? And no, they did not do so in any special sense for the atomic bombings out of fears the bomb wouldn’t work.

          Again, it is quite easy to simply handwave this with “they could’ve done X” without being in the shoes of the people who made the choices. The project barely worked and cost billions of dollars, the enemy was assumed to be utterly fanatical in their devotion to continue the war, and there was no guarantee the bomb would have worked at all.

          As for your claims of made-up BS…my statements are true to the best of my knowledge around allied war planning and bombing doctrine. There were plenty of ways to maximize civilian deaths using area bombing, and the Allies generally refused to do them, instead focusing on targets of military value.

          Idk personally. I’m not that educated in this topic.

          Ah, so then you are stating you lack sufficient data to make the right decision? Congratulations! You are experiencing, in part, what it was like to be living at that time! Nobody was educated in atomic warfare, as it hadn’t happened yet and we’d had basically 1 test a few weeks before it began for real. Pair that with not knowing what the Japanese were thinking and only having data based on their actions and official communications (which pointed to essentially national suicide in defense of the Emperor), and now you get a glimpse of the calculus being made about the bombings. Don’t fall into the classic “20/20 hindsight” trap many people fall into: think about the problem as though you were there.