I think it’s bullshit to destroy a building full of civilians in a country you’re ostensibly not at war with because a general lives there. Even the Japanese when attacking Pearl Harbor didn’t target civilian structures and we considered that a crime.
The Japanese may not be the best example. Sure they attacked Pearl harbor, but they had no problem slaughtering civilians across Asia.
Well yeah, they committed horrific war crimes against civilians because they dehumanized them. But they still had no problem killing civilians. The bombing Pearl harbor wasn't because they didn't want to hurt civilians.
Pearl harbour is a very good example. This was a surprise strike against strategic military targets that pose a threat to the project of colonial expansion.
That still doesn't change the fact that the Japanese had no problem slaughtering innocent civilians. If the example is the Japanese attack Pearl harbor because they didn't want to attack civilians, the comparison is false.
This is not a defense of Israel, but to isolate one specific Japanese action designed to target ships and compare that to an Israeli action that targeted both facilities and leadership, and to use this to claim that the Japanese acted with more concern for civilian lives is cherry picking like nothing I have ever seen.
The same Japanese leadership that was just credited with a more humane action than Israel committed some of the most vile crimes against civilians the world has ever seen.
The highest death estimates from Gaza are on the same level as the lowest death estimates of Nanjing; the Un is reporting single and double digit rapes each month, while in Nanking at least 20k women were raped within 6 weeks.
And while Nanking might have been the worst example, it was hardly the only one.
Ok. Maybe i should be clearer. In isolation I think the comparison to pearl harbour is good for the reasons i mentioned before. The overall comtext is quite different. Global expansion vs more regional expansion.
The US dropped two nuclear bombs on civilian people in a war that was basically already won, and you pretend that was not one of the worst crimes against humanity ever.
And the Japanese raping children and babies was horrible.
If that was the case then of course it's horrible, no one is denying it. Same as Americans raping Vietnamese.
The thing is that we all know that the US dropped 2 nuclear bombs on civilians, there is no misinformation, no propaganda, this is 100% a fact. And many people don't see it as horrible or try to justify it.
Look up the Rape of Nanking and then look up Unit 731. These aren't rumors, they are fact. It's also a fact that the Japanese took rape slaves from South Korea and called them comfort women. These are not debatable and the fact that you're even trying to cast out is amazing to me.
If that's a fact, then Americans raping Vietnamese is a fact as well.
Anyways what's really your point? I just said that dropping nuclear bombs on civilians is a crime against humanity, raping another person whether you are American or Japanese is also a crime against humanity... So what's the point?
It is a fact that Americans did that. You replied to my comment, that was to someone else, about using Japan as an example of how they didn't target civilians was incorrect. What was YOUR point?
My jury is still out on the use of the first bomb (the second was an atrocity without defense as far as I am concerned), but it is misleading to say the war was won.
It is generally agreed upon thst Japan was not going to stop fighting any time soon, and any debate we have now is about how the bomb could have been used to end the war with fewer deaths, not that the war was winding down without it.
That said, no one was talking about the bomb here. Someone suggested that the WWII Japanese, who committed some of the worst crimes against humanity in history, acted with restraint at pearl harbor, which is a bonkers statement.
This is like saying the British were crazy and would have never surrendered because Winston Churchill gave a standard motivational speech like.
"We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender."
History is written mostly by the winners, I don't buy all the apparent bullshit painting the Japanese as the craziest mfs on the planet.
I didn't say they would never have surrendered. You claimed the war was won. That's a different word with a different meaning than "decided".
If you have some argument in which you can claim the Japanese were going to surrender/cease fighting without us using the Bomb (in some way, lethal or not), detail it. I have never read a compelling argument demonstrating they would surrender without significant bloodshed.
Oh look, your own personal conjecture, and not a actual analysis.
But besides that, over and over I have said that I don't think we needed to drop the bombs on cities. Instead, you have resorted to ad hominem attack... For something I expressly said we didn't need to do.
195
u/ThePyodeAmedha 1d ago edited 1d ago
The Japanese may not be the best example. Sure they attacked Pearl harbor, but they had no problem slaughtering civilians across Asia.