Russia on brink of ... NOPE! Russia INVADES Ukraine!

Page 730 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Leeea

Platinum Member
Apr 3, 2020
2,512
3,735
106
you don't understand Japanese culture of the time
Your just being willfully foolish now.

Tell me, how did the Meiji restoration come to be? Oh yes, the previous divine emperor was tossed out. ( forced abdication ). So much for godhood.

How did the Meiji restoration come to an end in 1912? When Crown Prince Yoshihito he proclaimed Taishō era. The population of Japan said screw that shit, and the Taishō political crisis occurred. This in turn triggers a time period known as the Taishō Democracy. So much for your divine emperor.

The Taishō Democracy would be killed off in 1926 by reactionary forces which would empower a military junta. Yep, the Showa era was not particularly divine either, and just used the "divine" emperor as a useful tool to legitimize their government. A bit how the monarchy in Britain legitimizes the British government.


You are the one speaking from ignorance here. Look past the propaganda. Don't let yourself believe racist propaganda that simplifies Japanese people into a bunch of mindless drones blindly obeying their divine god.
 
Last edited:

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
11,261
6,091
136
Leeea, I'll thank you not to attribute your misconceptions on this to me. I specifically cited duty as the reason and here you are now trying to insinuate I consider them "stupid," "blinded by culture"? Please. Calling Hirohito's line "a failed regime" just confirms to me you don't understand Japanese culture of the time. He was divine. You get how that is different, right?

I provided you some links, I hope it helps clear things up. Please note that the 140k people who died in Hiroshima and the 74k that died in Nagasaki are together much less than the 600k you just admitted could die from famine. This isn't about race, it's about math.


Your links are just the same propaganda justifying the atrocity we all have read many times before.


So what if the Emperor was divine? Roman emperors were divine to, that did not stop their heads from bouncing down the forum steps. The Kings and Queens of Europe were considered to have divine mandate, the guillotine did not care. Egyptian pharaohs were considered to gods, right up until they were offed by the new god.


The fact that they were "Japanese" does not magically make them not human or justify the atrocities. You know better then to believe the Japanese were somehow more holy then the rest of us.

Wish I knew what I thought about this one. I've changed my mind about it more than once in my life.

I gather there is some evidence that the ordinary Japanese were starting to crack towards the end of the war - the military officer class were not popular with Japanese civilians.

But... the Japanese fought quite ferociously - and to the death - in defending the Pacific Islands. Why wouldn't it be reasonable for the allies believe the same would be true, on a vastly-larger scale, for any invasion of the Japanese mainland? I don't think it's an unreasonable calculation to weigh the deaths at Nagasaki and Hiroshima against those that would have occured in an invasion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Leeea and Muse

Leeea

Platinum Member
Apr 3, 2020
2,512
3,735
106
They didn't even immediately surrender after the second bomb, and the nuclear attacks weren't even the final bomb raids against Japan. The emperor had the surrender broadcast on radio so the military wouldn't block his surrender order.

And to disagree with the argument you have to completely ignore the firebombing that would've replaced the usage of the nukes. I really don't understand why killing less people with nukes is worse than killing more people with firestorms.
You are correct, the fire bombing was more horrific.

One atrocity does not make the other atrocity right.

Wow.

I'm not that familiar with your posts Leeea, but even then this level of ignorant blather and desire to get personal really seems out of character for you. I can't decide if you've been drinking or someone hijacked your account. Is there a Japanese woman in your life and you took my comments with offense somehow? Very weird.

I've seen you make great posts, in this very thread, so I'm going to give you the benefit of a doubt and just chalk it up to a bad day and drop it. If you want to continue this in another thread about 20th century Japanese history, I am your huckleberry. I'd leave the straw here though.
I do not have anyone with Japanese ethnicity in my life. I also dislike Anime, with some exceptions.

I am out of time for the day, so I do have to go. This has gone off topic, so it is time to drop it.

I doubt either one of us will change our minds at this point.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Drach and Muse

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
23,081
23,652
136
Your just being willfully foolish now.

Tell me, how did the Meiji restoration come to be? Oh yes, the previous divine emperor was tossed out. ( forced abdication ). So much for godhood.

How did the Meiji restoration come to an end in 1912? When Crown Prince Yoshihito he proclaimed Taishō era. The population of Japan said screw that shit, and the Taishō political crisis occurred. This in turn triggers a time period known as the Taishō Democracy. So much for your divine emperor.

The Taishō Democracy would be killed off in 1926 by reactionary forces which would empower a military junta. Yep, the Showa era was not particularly divine either, and just used the "divine" emperor has a useful tool to legitimize their government. A bit how the monarchy in Britain legitimizes the British government.


You are the one speaking from ignorance here. Look past the propaganda. Don't let yourself believe racist propaganda that simplifies Japanese people into a bunch of mindless drones blindly obeying their divine god.

My that's a lot of spittle to not address the famine vs bomb deaths self-own. Grats on discovering wiki Leeea.

Just going to rant huh? Ok.

I'm leaning more "booze" now, btw, I'm sure your passwords are fine.
 

K1052

Lifer
Aug 21, 2003
41,880
23,205
136
But... the Japanese fought quite ferociously - and to the death - in defending the Pacific Islands. Why wouldn't it be reasonable for the allies believe the same would be true, on a vastly-larger scale, for any invasion of the Japanese mainland? I don't think it's an unreasonable calculation to weigh the deaths at Nagasaki and Hiroshima against those that would have occured in an invasion.
Japanese strategy became that if they inflicted severe enough casualties on an attacking force the US would eventually cease attacking and negotiate favorable terms to end hostilities. This was one in a number of very serious miscalculations by the Japanese military leadership. Japanese civilians probably had the most to fear from their own military who would have likely murdered them en mass as traitors if they did not defend the home islands.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brovane and Leeea

Leeea

Platinum Member
Apr 3, 2020
2,512
3,735
106
My that's a lot of spittle to not address the famine vs bomb deaths self-own. Grats on discovering wiki Leeea.

Just going to rant huh? Ok.

I'm leaning more "booze" now, btw, I'm sure your passwords are fine.
I already addressed the famine argument several posts back.

I am also out of time.


I think this really is a question of "ends justify the means" arguments. The argument for firebombing Japan and the argument for nuking Japan are essentially the same. If you support one, the same logic supports the other.


On a personal level, I am a fan of "ends justify the means", I think it is the strongest moral argument to be made.


It is just that I reject the idea that the means were necessary with Japan. Both with the firebombing and the nukes. I also reject the argument that it was done to save Japanese lives. Because that is not what was achieved with either action.


The best argument for nuking Japan was to counter the USSR and preserve allied forces for the inevitable face off with the USSR. I am unsure I agree with that, but the idea that nuking Japan was to save Japanese lives is just propaganda. Murdering the largest concentration of people left in the community to save the community level of inanity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brovane

pcgeek11

Lifer
Jun 12, 2005
19,955
3,373
126
---

If I were the US, I would offer Putin a sweet deal that would be hard to turn down. Negotiate a quick end to the war and to grant Putin political asylum in the U.S. with a $ billion of his own money. That would include his family and to live free in a secluded and protected place for the rest of his life. The other Russians in the leadership would be thankful for a way out of their predicament esp if it could come to a quick and painless end like this.

Putin would go for it. Because he cares more for his own skin and family than his country.

So you would reward his crimes?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Muse

Leeea

Platinum Member
Apr 3, 2020
2,512
3,735
106
So you would reward his crimes?
If that plan would work, it would be worth it.

But the plan would never work.


Putin is an expression of Russian society. Kill him, grant him asylum, etc and Putin v2.0 replaces him. Just like Trump. Trump is the expression of a group of people who always existed in US society. Putin is the same for Russia.
 

rommelrommel

Diamond Member
Dec 7, 2002
3,812
2,003
146
It's not racist to say that millions would have died in Ketsu-Go and the onrushing famine in Japan had they not surrendered when they did.

These were not concerns for the US but the timing did end up benefiting the Japanese people as a whole. This is besides the ethical and moral questions of using the weapons.
My belief is that they primarily surrendered because of the Soviet offensive, their defence on the mainland of Asia had collapsed and they had no likelihood of being able to provide more than a token resistance in Hokkaido to the next Soviet offensive that was coming within weeks probably.
 

Michael

Elite member
Nov 19, 1999
5,435
234
106
I already addressed the famine argument several posts back.

I am also out of time.


I think this really is a question of "ends justify the means" arguments. The argument for firebombing Japan and the argument for nuking Japan are essentially the same. If you support one, the same logic supports the other.


On a personal level, I am a fan of "ends justify the means", I think it is the strongest moral argument to be made.


It is just that I reject the idea that the means were necessary with Japan. Both with the firebombing and the nukes. I also reject the argument that it was done to save Japanese lives. Because that is not what was achieved with either action.


The best argument for nuking Japan was to counter the USSR and preserve allied forces for the inevitable face off with the USSR. I am unsure I agree with that, but the idea that nuking Japan was to save Japanese lives is just propaganda. Murdering the largest concentration of people left in the community to save the community level of inanity.
Nuking Japan was to save American lives.

It also probably net saved Japanese lives, but it was another in a series of naked aggression that I feel is justified considering the total war that was in place at the time, but it certainly was an attack against population centers designed to be so horrific that Japan would surrender without being invaded.

If I went back in time and had to advise the President, I maybe would have said just drop one and see if they capitulate instead of dropping the second bomb.

Otherwise it was a terrible but reasonable choice at the time.

which has nothing to do with Russia in Ukraine as Russia would survive fine if they called a truce and retreated out of Ukraine. Putin probably would not, but Russia would certainly survive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zorba

amenx

Diamond Member
Dec 17, 2004
3,227
1,190
136
So you would reward his crimes?
If it would put an end to further destruction, mayhem, 1000s of casualties, collapsing economies and misery affecting millions and potential nuclear war, sure. Kind of suprised anyone would see that as a deal breaker, lol. If it was an either/or situation, abso-fucking-lutely.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Leeea

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
11,400
8,769
146
Lotta train lever morality discussions going on in here. Also getting to see who prioritizes justice over life, and vice versa.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Leeea

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
23,081
23,652
136
Putin probably would not, but Russia would certainly survive.
This is true. The war in Ukraine is an existential crisis for Putin's rule. Defeat means he's a goner.

Russia's survival as a federation? Another 10-20 years if I had to guess. Maybe a lot less with Putin dragging out the inevitable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Leeea

biostud

Lifer
Feb 27, 2003
16,789
2,514
126
  • Like
Reactions: Jaskalas and Leeea

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
12,507
7,596
136
I already addressed the famine argument several posts back.

I am also out of time.


I think this really is a question of "ends justify the means" arguments. The argument for firebombing Japan and the argument for nuking Japan are essentially the same. If you support one, the same logic supports the other.


On a personal level, I am a fan of "ends justify the means", I think it is the strongest moral argument to be made.


It is just that I reject the idea that the means were necessary with Japan. Both with the firebombing and the nukes. I also reject the argument that it was done to save Japanese lives. Because that is not what was achieved with either action.


The best argument for nuking Japan was to counter the USSR and preserve allied forces for the inevitable face off with the USSR. I am unsure I agree with that, but the idea that nuking Japan was to save Japanese lives is just propaganda. Murdering the largest concentration of people left in the community to save the community level of inanity.
I've never heard anyone say it was to save Japanese, just that it did. All of WW2 was a horrible mess with many atrocities. The firebombing and nuking we're evil, but may have prevented more suffering in the long run.

I do believe the nukes changed the world, though. Without nukes there would've been more world wars by now. Without the demonstration of their horribleness in Japan, nukes may have been used early in the cold war.

Regardless, just because the US has used them, 80 years ago, doesn't mean the cat is out of the bag and anyone can use them now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bitek

ASK THE COMMUNITY