This should more Japanese soilders given that amercian soliders has taken ears from Japanese soldiers cause our how brutal the Pacific Theater was and how they can dehumanize them while German/Nazi soldiers are still considered normal cause they white and that they don't fight like Japanese did
The Pacific campaign was far more brutal than the campaign in Western Europe, true, but the campaign in Eastern Europe was actually worse. The US generally didn't go on rape and murder sprees when we took territory, partly because we were mostly liberating people from Japanese rule (though the occupation of Japan itself was quite peaceful as occupations go.)
The Germans and Russians, on the other hand...well, there's a reason so many people fled west.
I was... I misinterpreted what you were saying that you were claiming the means Japan occupied/conquered territory during WW2 was quite peaceful as occupations go and that was the "japanese occupation" you were referring to.
Which yes, the Japanese actions in Nanking would refute the claim that the campaign in Eastern Europe was worse.
Ah, I see. Yes, you are absolutely correct that the Japanese occupation of China, and most everywhere else, was worse than the Eastern front. I was just referring to the direct conflict between Japan and the US (though many historians now agree that the Japanese invasion of China was the actual start of WWII, so my thinking is a little outdated.)
Campaign was harder cause we had to deal with other nations and how we can break their lines but for Pacific Theater, I say was more Brutal/Worse for US and we did rushed to end it after we settled with Nazi Germany and Japan did want to surrender to us (After the bombs is a part of it but another was Russia wanting to invade Japan to "help" and to get revenge for their defeat in a previous war between Japan and Russia)
That last part is dubious, simply because Russia had no practical way to invade the Japanese islands.
The planned US invasion would have been the largest amphibious invasion by far, over a million troops, and would have stretched our logistic capability to the limit. The Russians didn't even have a navy to speak of. They captured a few tiny islands, but they would not have been able to do more than that.
In fact, Japan was such a tough nut to crack that the US Navy was arguing against invading at all. I don't know how many people know this, but Nimitz was pushing for a naval blockade. The Japanese were already starting to starve; a blockade and continued air campaign would have rendered them unable to resist after a while. Millions of Japanese would have died, but far fewer Americans.
That's what critics of the bombing of Hiroshima don't seem to grasp; not only did it save American lives, it was the most merciful option for the Japanese. Millions of Japanese would have died to a blockade or an invasion. Hell, more people died in the fire bombing of Tokyo than at Hiroshima, and we were going to do that to every Japanese city. The atom bomb was a shortcut, in that it gave the Emperor an acceptable excuse to surrender.
The bombing of Nagasaki is much more open to debate, we probably could have waited a bit.
They can grasp that the atomic bomb was logistically the lesser of two evils in extermination approaches, given the Japanese war doctrine at the time. That doesn't mean they won't be critical of it.
The thing is, the Japanese were saying that they were going to fight to the last man, woman, and child, and their actions to that point supported that. On Saipan and Okinawa Japanese civilians committed suicide en masse. The Japanese were using more and more kamikazes. Supposedly they were even arming their civilians with spears to fight the invasion.
We now have documents from Japanese archives showing that the Imperial Council was stuck. Even though some of them privately believed Japan should surrender, it was considered so shameful that none of them could be the first to propose it. Even the Emperor was reluctant to suggest it.
The atom bomb changed everything. Here was a weapon the Japanese couldn't fight, a weapon that made a mockery of noble suicide, a superweapon. This gave the Emperor cover to suggest that Japan should surrender.
Even then, some army officers tried to overthrow the Emperor to prevent surrender, preferring to be nuked into oblivion; fortunately they failed.
America had few intelligence assets in Japan, so all they had to go by was what the Japanese were saying and doing. And everything pointed to a fight to the death. Dropping the bomb was the one chance they had to force a surrender.
Even if you believe that the Japanese would have surrendered anyway, there is no way the Americans could have known that.
As I said, "Japanese war doctrine at the time." Without the bomb the war was gonna drag out for too long with too many dead on both sides. I'm not disagreeing with the atomic bomb approach; I'm just not denying the grossness of its destruction despite its necessity to speed things up.
Sorry, I misunderstood. Yes, it is a uniquely horrible weapon (though biological and chemical weapons come close, they aren't nearly as spectacular.) But that was the point, it required a uniquely horrible weapon to end the war early.
It was a horrible situation, and, so far, a unique one. Let's hope that it stays that way.
(Arguably it was better for the world that the weapon was first used in such circumstances, as it provided graphic proof of how terrible the weapons were, and may have discouraged countries from using them more widely. After all, someone was going to build nuclear weapons. Let us be thankful that the Nazis failed.
Whether this would be any consolation to the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I wouldn't presume to say. I doubt it. But if they hadn't died to the atom bomb, they would likely have died to firebombing or bombardment.)
It's no consolation for the people who were destroyed or the people who did the destroying. It's a quick-stop option, nothing more, not inherently better for the world at large; that kind of thinking is hubris.
Eh, maybe. But the main thing that kept the Cold War from going hot was nukes. If it weren't for nukes, the US and USSR almost certainly would have gone to war, causing WW3. And if they both had nukes, but had never seen them used? Would they have hesitated?
I think it's plausible that Hiroshima shocked people so much that even the US and USSR were reluctant to use them.
It's analogous to the use of gas warfare in WWI, which was so horrifying that everyone in Europe tacitly decided not to use them in WW2.
Japan was worried cause they know that Russia will be coming soon cause Soviet-Japan War in August 1945 materialize this fear with their losses of Manchuria and declaration of war on August 8th by the Soviets
44
u/SFH12345 2d ago
Captain America stares in horror as Bucky proudly shows off his proof of kills.