What makes My Lai wrong and Hiroshima right?

[Deleted]

One thing is that Mai Lai was a massacre, plain and simple, it wasn't something that was planned that way, more rampaging troops and poor discipline along with pent up stress etc. That's a war crime. Its as bad as when the Germans butchered the population of a French village in WW2 for supporting the Resistance.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki actually saved lives and quite possibly Japan and Japanese culture, as horrific as that sounds. If we'd not have nuked them, and instead gone ahead with Olympic/Downfall then you'd have another 8 - 12 months of heavy firebombing combined with a total sea blockade with mines, subs and repeated air sweeps from Carrier launched planes.

Prior to the nuking of the two cities the Japanese were BARELY getting along with minimal rationing, and their supply situation was close to collapse. A tighter blockade (and it would have gotten tighter, the USAF was mining coastal waters and reaping a fearsome toll of small craft) would have seen this supply chain collapse entirely and then you're throwing the country into a famine.

Also the Japanese were still killing anywhere between 30 - 75000 people a MONTH in their occupied territories (mainly to take food etc so they could survive) with a 'conservative' estimate being somewhere around 40k people dying in Japanese occupied territory every month and this WOULD go up if Japan fell into the grip of a famine. So lets go with that to start with an have say 9 months of Japan in famine with the 'conservative' estimate of 40k people dying outside of Japan a month.

Add to this a ramped up firebombing of Japan and constant air attacks from carrier planes.

Now comes Olympic/Downfall the invasion of Japan. The Japanese were not dumb and had figured out where the Allied forces would land (mainly because there's very few suitable zones) and were in the process of massively fortifying the area.

They were also training up a militia and they would have at best been armed with bolt action rifles, or bamboo spears, and their main anti-tank 'weapon' was strapping satchel charges to themselves, and hoping that when they ran at a tank they were not A. cut in half by machine gun fire, and B, when it ran them over, the charge detonated. And they were planning something on the order of 2 million or so of these reservists who would have been thrown at the US/Allied forces when they landed. So you're looking at something far far worse than anything the US had encountered in the Pacific island assaults thus far.

Yes the Japanese were massing aircraft but I doubt these would have been that effective mainly due to piss poor pilot training and massive air sweeps in the build up to the invasion attacking airbases. But the US was still planning to take a simply unheard of level of casualties (well not Eastern front level but unheard of for them).

The Japanese General staff even had ideas of releasing bio weapons. Not on the US troops, but their own people to both slow down the US forces trying to help them (if they did at all) or help spread the infections to them. This includes Small pox and Bubonic plague. They also were looking at using gas on the beaches. But then again so was the US IF the Japanese did first.

You're looking at hundreds of thousands of allied casualties (dead and wounded) and MILLIONS of dead Japanese. Not to mention the ongoing deaths in their conquered territories.

And then you've the risk of a Soviet invasion of the North, which would result in Japan becoming another Korea/Vietnam situation. I think 'ol Bombs Away LeMay's prophecy of 'Japanese only being a language spoken in hell' would be true. The US forces could have used the nukes against other cities (and they planned to and were producing more nukes to drop for the Olympic invasion).

So the white hot flash and annihilation of two cities and tens of thousands of people actually, perversly saved the lives of Millions, and probably the culture of Japan.

[Deleted]

History much? Without the nukes the war would ended by 1947, it would be a disaster to the USA millitary- and thats not counting the Russians coming from up north.
The consequences were severe, yes, but Japan is millions time doing better than any other country under the Soviet rule.

History my ass.
The japanese were ready to surrender, with their economy in shatter and no way to produce anything. They refused the peace deal with the idea of getting a better solution for them. Instead of getting back to them, US sent 2 bombs.
There is no indication Japan would have fallen to Russian rule.

[Deletedaccount1]

For everyone taking a utilitarian approach to this question, I pose this:

Would the Holocaust have been justified if it resulted in a large scale quality of life improvement for the vast majority of Europeans who were not Jewish?

[Deleted]

Except that you do- the Russians were already fighting the Japanese in Manchuria and the treaty of Jalta was already signed- so that gave the Allies an idea what the Soviets could have asked once the Emperor and the counsils accepted the capitulation.

What prevented Russia from invading afterwards?

[Deletedaccount1]

Except that you do- the Russians were already fighting the Japanese in Manchuria and the treaty of Jalta was already signed- so that gave the Allies an idea what the Soviets could have asked once the Emperor and the counsils accepted the capitulation.

Yes that is what I said. You are justifying the death of over 150k civilians by saying a country could have invaded and could have demanded to exert their ideology on the invaded country.

[bossmode]

I am a Croat of german heritage- I wish the war never started, but since it did, I would rather side with Germany and Japan. The victory of allied states brought more trouble to my family than the Axis victory would have. Its realy a rational approach.

I can't believe what I am reading. I am Croatian as well. My great-great grandfather was a german jew who died in the concentration camps. Supporting Germany and Japan of that time- both who carried out genocides and performed horrific expieriments on living people- is disgusting. Shame on you. There is nothing rational, or moral for that matter, about your approach. You support genocidal maniacs bent on world domination. Also, I'm not sure if you actually research history before you talk about it, but the Germans in ww2 caused a lot of damage in Croatia. Again, shame on you.

[Foosha]

Learn to construct proper sentences.

Oh sorry I forgot a comma. How about you learn to argue properly. No? Ok just flame. reported

[Deletedaccount1]

One thing is that Mai Lai was a massacre, plain and simple, it wasn't something that was planned that way, more rampaging troops and poor discipline along with pent up stress etc. That's a war crime. Its as bad as when the Germans butchered the population of a French village in WW2 for supporting the Resistance.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki actually saved lives and quite possibly Japan and Japanese culture, as horrific as that sounds. If we'd not have nuked them, and instead gone ahead with Olympic/Downfall then you'd have another 8 - 12 months of heavy firebombing combined with a total sea blockade with mines, subs and repeated air sweeps from Carrier launched planes.

Again, let me pose the question Caplan does:

Had the bombings not ended the war, would they still have been justified? If not, wouldn't that make the My Lai massacre justified if it had somehow ended the Vietnam war?

[Deleted]

What prevented Russia from invading afterwards?

Mainly a lack of capacity to do so. They lacked the ships/equipment to actually perform the invasion.

[Deletedaccount1]

Mainly a lack of capacity to do so. They lacked the ships/equipment to actually perform the invasion.

So doesn't that make it an invalid argument that the bombing was justified to save Japan from communism?

[Deleted]

For everyone taking a utilitarian approach to this question, I pose this:

Would the Holocaust have been justified if it resulted in a large scale quality of life improvement for the vast majority of Europeans who were not Jewish?

Absolutely not. When people start justifying catastrophic events with "what could have" happened, it's a sign they're full of shit.

- - - Updated - - -

Mainly a lack of capacity to do so. They lacked the ships/equipment to actually perform the invasion.

Sooooo how did the 2 atomic bombs prevent Russia from invading Japan again?

[Deletedaccount1]

Absolutely not. When people start justifying catastrophic events with "what could have" happened, it's a sign they're full of shit.

I would have to concur, my Hamas friend.

[Foosha]

That is part speculation and part poor morality.

Firstly, you don't know that millions would have died in an invasion (if one was even necessary) and you don't know that Russia would have invaded and demanded to control a large portion of the country to exert communist influence over the Japanese.

Secondly, you fall for one of the logical inconsistencies that Caplan points out. If you are argue that it was a moral action because it ended the war, you are also implying that if it had failed to end the war it would become an immoral action. Therefore, My Lai would have been moral if it somehow had ended the Vietnam war.

The soviets would have. That is 100% given. After the US dropped they bombs they declared war and tried to take a chunk of Japan after the fact. And who gives a flying fuck about morality. It's the ease of dropping the bomb vs invasion of island after island and bombing after bombing (regular bombing).

It's simple really, the bomb exerted power unimaginable, and the US thought it could end the war. It did. Mai Lai was a tactical decision to put fear into the VC, not an end all be all show of force (the VC knew what America was capable of). If the US wanted to win the war in Vietnam, they could have, and the VC/north knew this. But it was containment, and all Mai Lai did was put disgust in the people at home.

[Deleted]

I would have to concur, my Hamas friend.

It's what they thought us in the Putin sponsored madras.

[Deleted]

Again, let me pose the question Caplan does:

Had the bombings not ended the war, would they still have been justified? If not, wouldn't that make the My Lai massacre justified if it had somehow ended the Vietnam war?

Its really hard to answer that, considering that more people died in the firebombing of Tokyo than they did in either Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Its why at first the Japanese were like "Meh. Seen it before, so what they did it with one bomb."

*SECOND NUKEFLASH*

"Oh shit..they can keep doing this..."

But even Then there were people in the Army who did NOT want to surrender. They could not accept it because of the whole dumb ass loss of face thing they had.

Also this was total war, the Americans pretty much hated the Japanese and the idiotic Japanese belief of 'if we cause enough casualties they'll call it quits' actually had no baring in reality.

If the bombing had not stopped the war, then its finis-Japan, more cities would have been annihilated by firebombing or a white hot flash of thermonuclear fire and if they still didn't surrender, then Olympic and Downfall would see the destruction of what was left of Japan.

One thing you should not do is equate modern thinking to the thinking of that time. To EVERYONE, the nuke was just a bloody big bomb. They didn't really know about the effects of radiation and fallout (and thank GOD both bombs were air bursts).

Basically if the nukes didn't make the Japanese come to their senses (their government was basically insane at this point) or make the Emperor (who thoroughly supported the war) do SOMETHING, then the fault would not be the Americans, but the Japanese.

Another big shock that had an effect was the collapse of their position in Manchuria. The Soviet advance was HUGE and the Japanese armed forces in the Region, probably their largest remaining field force collapsed and was destroyed (mainly because it had been drawn down a LOT to move troops from it to other regions). And this combined with the nukes made the Japanese see sense.

Yet some officers STILL attempted a coup even then! I don't think any of us can understand how simply fucking INSANE some of the Japanese Officers corps was.

[Ishayu]

For everyone taking a utilitarian approach to this question, I pose this:

Would the Holocaust have been justified if it resulted in a large scale quality of life improvement for the vast majority of Europeans who were not Jewish?

That's not equivalent. The equivalent would be nuking Israel to improve the quality of life of Jews. That's the thing about the nuke on the Japanese - it broke the stubborn pride of their leaders and therefore literally caused the rise of democratic Japan.

I honestly don't have an answer as to whether it was moral or not to bomb the Japanese, but I also don't really care. The US said "sorry", the Japanese said "sorry" - everyone forgave each other, pride was broken and friendship began in the wake of it. There's no reason to go back and dig in it to find whatever residual guilt and anger may be left. How's that going to help anybody?

It's true that the ends don't always justify the means, but sometimes you can see in hindsight that it can actually can be the case that the ends DO justify the means. It's just extremely rare and you have to be very, very certain there is no other alternative before you do something something like this.

PS: I have American AND Japanese friends, and I am neither. There is no animosity here over what happened from any of them.

[Macaquerie]

I think the consensus is that while Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't exactly justified on either military or humanitarian grounds, Japan is wise to keep quiet about it lest they invite a shitstorm of backlash from their neighbors over the far greater crimes that their soldiers committed during the war. It's sort of like the rapes committed by the Red Army in Berlin. Sure, it was pretty bad, but do the Germans really want to raise a stink about it, knowing that they will instantly get smacked down by the tidal wave of far worse shit they did during the war?

[Deletedaccount1]

The soviets would have. That is 100% given. After the US dropped they bombs they declared war and tried to take a chunk of Japan after the fact. And who gives a flying fuck about morality. It's the ease of dropping the bomb vs invasion of island after island and bombing after bombing (regular bombing).

It's simple really, the bomb exerted power unimaginable, and the US thought it could end the war. It did. Mai Lai was a tactical decision to put fear into the VC, not an end all be all show of force (the VC knew what America was capable of). If the US wanted to win the war in Vietnam, they could have, and the VC/north knew this. But it was containment, and all Mai Lai did was put disgust in the people at home.

How do you know that? Someone else in here said they lacked the ships, supplies and troops to invade. Even if they did and tried to take control, why would the US let them?

Caplan's 7th point is still powerful here. Had the bombing not stopped the Soviet Union from invading, would it be worth calling a war crime?

[Deleted]

Bombings was mainly so that they didnt have to put boots on the ground on mainland Japan. Seeing how fierce the Japanese defended the island and even women and children would rather chose to throw themselves from cliffs than to fall in enemy hands it might have stopped even more deaths.

Dying for the emperor was their martyrdom, the ultimate price pretty much like jihadis. By using a weapon so horrible and poweful they showed they could destroy a city per strike, and they wasnt afraid to use it.

So on one hand you have the need to protect your own soldiers from having to fight japanese willing to throw their lives away without much thought. And the other the millions of civilians that might do the same.

Versus

Using a weapon on a city full of innocent people, turning it and them to dust. Inflicting horrible damage and suffering.

Not a black and white issue. Even After the bombs was used several generals didnt want to give up, only the emperor was powerful enough to stop the war.
What we know today about Japanese and what the Americans knew at the time differ. It was hard to get prisoners as people tend to choose death over capture.

[Deleted]

Its really hard to answer that, considering that more people died in the firebombing of Tokyo than they did in either Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Its why at first the Japanese were like "Meh. Seen it before, so what they did it with one bomb."

*SECOND NUKEFLASH*

"Oh shit..they can keep doing this..."

But even Then there were people in the Army who did NOT want to surrender. They could not accept it because of the whole dumb ass loss of face thing they had.

Also this was total war, the Americans pretty much hated the Japanese and the idiotic Japanese belief of 'if we cause enough casualties they'll call it quits' actually had no baring in reality.

If the bombing had not stopped the war, then its finis-Japan, more cities would have been annihilated by firebombing or a white hot flash of thermonuclear fire and if they still didn't surrender, then Olympic and Downfall would see the destruction of what was left of Japan.

One thing you should not do is equate modern thinking to the thinking of that time. To EVERYONE, the nuke was just a bloody big bomb. They didn't really know about the effects of radiation and fallout (and thank GOD both bombs were air bursts).

Basically if the nukes didn't make the Japanese come to their senses (their government was basically insane at this point) or make the Emperor (who thoroughly supported the war) do SOMETHING, then the fault would not be the Americans, but the Japanese.

Actually, the japanese government was ready to surrender.

The individual soldier really doesn't matter in the great scheme of things.

- - - Updated - - -

That's not equivalent. The equivalent would be nuking Israel to improve the quality of life of Jews. That's the thing about the nuke on the Japanese - it broke the stubborn pride of their leaders and therefore literally caused the rise of democratic Japan.

I honestly don't have an answer as to whether it was moral or not to bomb the Japanese, but I also don't really care. The US said "sorry", the Japanese said "sorry" - everyone forgave each other, pride was broken and friendship began in the wake of it. There's no reason to go back and dig in it to find whatever residual guilt and anger may be left. How's that going to help anybody?

It's true that the ends don't always justify the means, but sometimes you can see in hindsight that it can actually can be the case that the ends DO justify the means. It's just extremely rare and you have to be very, very certain there is no other alternative before you do something something like this.

PS: I have American AND Japanese friends, and I am neither. There is no animosity here over what happened from any of them.

The reason why the discussion is important is so that people like you saying "the end justify the means" realise that they're wrong.

- - - Updated - - -

The soviets would have. That is 100% given. After the US dropped they bombs they declared war and tried to take a chunk of Japan after the fact. And who gives a flying fuck about morality. It's the ease of dropping the bomb vs invasion of island after island and bombing after bombing (regular bombing).

It's simple really, the bomb exerted power unimaginable, and the US thought it could end the war. It did. Mai Lai was a tactical decision to put fear into the VC, not an end all be all show of force (the VC knew what America was capable of). If the US wanted to win the war in Vietnam, they could have, and the VC/north knew this. But it was containment, and all Mai Lai did was put disgust in the people at home.

Provide reliable proof to back your very assertive claim please.
Also, do you realise that apart from bombing and invading, there was also another path being followed, diplomatic peace?