Kawaii

  • gmtom@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    23 hours ago

    But thats dishonest. It assumes that:

    1. The nuking of Japan was the reason they surrendered

    2. The nukes were gauranteed to make then surrender.

    Like would it still have been justified if Japan hadnt surrendered? Then youve committed an atrocity for no reason.

    Or what about if it was a different atrocity? Would tourturing a few hundred thousand Japanese to death be justified for the same reason?

    • lmagitem@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      20 hours ago

      Especially since it probably wasn’t the reason they surrendered. There are multiple papers on the subject. They didn’t really grasp the difference between the atomic bombs and regular bombing, and the US were carpet bombing multiple other cities at the time. They probably surrendered because of the Soviet advance after failed talks with them, which definitely reduced their chances to zero.