You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
22 points

Japan was already seeking surrender even before the first bomb. They were ready for almost unconditional surrender, with their only condition being immunity for the emperor. The USA wanted full unconditional surrender and also to keep USSR from the negotiations, so they dropped the bomb. Then they dropped the second bomb, even though Japan tried to surrender again after the first one. I would say this counts as a lie when people say Hiroshima and Nagasaki were in any way necessary to bomb. The war was won at that point.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

The claim was that “the bomb probably saved more lives than it killed”. Not that it was necessary to make the Japanese surrender. Mutually assured destruction via nuclear warheads is what kept the Cold War cold. Who knows how many people would have died all over the world if the USSR and the USA went into direct armed conflict?

Maybe it’d have been less than the victims of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, though I doubt it. My point is that there’s no way of knowing.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

This is what propaganda does to s person. U go on forget about the innocent people who were killed needlessly. ONLY imagine how much worse it could be

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

You’re arguing in bad faith. My entire argument is about the proportion between the people who did die and the people who could have died, so how can anyone make that argument while forgetting one of the two groups and focusing only on the other? A proportion implies both groups.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

This is what I mean

permalink
report
parent
reply