In regards to nuclear weapons use in WWII, the dominant narrative is that the alternative is a ground invasion with greater loss of life. I guess the Allies just surrendering was an option to… but that’s would have lead to more genocide, no?
And while I know that’s the UN definition. I’m saying I disagree with it for being too broad and including most forms of warfare. I think actually planned slaughter of an entire group with the attempt of elimination is worth keeping a separate (and worse) category.
Most accept that the horrors of WWII committed by the Allies were ‘worth it’ to stop the more evil Axis. But if it actually was worth it is perhaps worth debating, I don’t disagree.
Yeah that was American propaganda at the time. Actual studies on Okinawa fighting suggest far fewer troop losses. The Japanese leadership themselves said the bombs were impressive but conventional bombing raids weren’t far off in power. They were far more scared of still being at war when Russia reached them.
No, that’s the dominant narrative in the US, but the data, even the US government then-contemporary data, doesn’t support that narrative in the slightest.
Any sources for that? I’ve never seen anything that indicated that Japan was going to surrender, just philosophizing about if it was justified to drop the bombs.
“Certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.”
U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey’s 1946 Study
“It always appeared to us that, atomic bomb or no atomic bomb, the Japanese were already on the verge of collapse.”
General Henry H. “Hap” Arnold
Commanding General of the U.S. Army
Air Forces Under President Truman
“Careful scholarly treatment of the records and manuscripts opened over the past few years has greatly enhanced our understanding of why Truman administration used atomic weapons against Japan. Experts continue to disagree on some issues, but critical questions have been answered. The consensus among scholars is the that the bomb was not needed to avoid an invasion of Japan. It is clear that alternatives to the bomb existed and that Truman and his advisers knew it.”
J. Samuel Walker
Chief Historian
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Personally, hearing that the actual generals that took part in that theater did not think it was necessary and that victory was assured as soon as a blockade was possible. That’s enough for me to believe the bombs being dropped were for other reasons other than for a surrender. Like a show of strength to the rest of the world. But that’s my own conclusion. It’s always important to hold some skepticism and seek out more sources imo
I guess the Allies just surrendering was an option to… but that’s would have lead to more genocide, no?
Yeah I mean there were probably options between surrender and nuclear warfare, but I think this is beside the point. Clearly it was at least collective punishment and a war crime, that’s how I would describe it.
And while I know that’s the UN definition. I’m saying I disagree with it for being too broad and including most forms of warfare.
It doesn’t include most forms of warfare because it has to be, “committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.” So the US in Afghanistan, despite being shitty, were not doing genocide. For example. The allied liberation of France? Fine. The goal was not to kill Germans, even though it was a necessary component.
I think actually planned slaughter of an entire group with the attempt of elimination is worth keeping a separate (and worse) category.
Yeah I mean obviously putting people in extermination camps is worse than starving them, in a way, but also, if the numbers were the same, does it matter? Is the Holodomor “not as bad” as Pol Pot’s genocide?
What would you call this category you propose? And what word would you use for what Israel is doing?
probably options between surrender and nuclear warfare
Yes, a ground invasion. Which was mentioned in the previous comment. And no, I don’t think it was intended to ‘punish’ civilians, but rather to make clear that the Japanese empire could not win. A common claim is that it actually saved civilian lives.
the US in Afghanistan, despite being shitty, were not doing genocide
Agreed. But they were killing a part of an ethnic group in the process. And it included civilians at times. Doesn’t seem vastly dissimilar. And the goal in the fire bombings of Germany was absolutely to kill German civilians and it was explicitly stated as such.
if the numbers were the same, does it matter?
Yes, very much so. The intent and methods absolutely matter. 9/11 killed thousands of civilians, but it would absurd to consider it genocide.
Is the Holodomor “not as bad” as Pol Pot’s genocide?
Simply put, yes. But more importantly, they are fundamentally different things, which is what I’m pointing out.
What would you call this category you propose?
Doesn’t matter to me as long as it’s agreed upon.
what word would you use for what Israel is doing?
I’d probably just stick with warfare. Brutal and horrible warfare. They are waging war to destroy an enemy that attacked them, and in doing so are killing a fuck load of civilians in the process. Sort of like Britain in WWII.
I’ll pose a question back, how many civilian deaths/collateral damage does it take for it to be genocide in your eyes? What if the Israeli’s only killed 1 single civilian as collateral damage? 10? 100? 1000?
To me, genocide requires intentional effort to end a group of people and/or their culture through specific and measurable actions. Some definitions agree with me, others don’t.
Yes, very much so. The intent and methods absolutely matter. 9/11 killed thousands of civilians, but it would absurd to consider it genocide.
Here I was talking about intentional starvation vs just straight up killing. So of course this wouldn’t mean 9/11 was genocide. But intentional starvation could still be a method of genocide if that was the intent.
Simply put, yes. But more importantly, they are fundamentally different things, which is what I’m pointing out.
Saying one is worse is a bit of a hot take. But sure. But the “fundamental difference” doesn’t seem so important to me, it’s just a matter of approach. If you choose to use starvation instead of shooting them in a mass grave is it really so different? Like choosing a different weapon. Would you ever consider a mass starvation to be a genocide?
I’d probably just stick with warfare. Brutal and horrible warfare. They are waging war to destroy an enemy that attacked them, and in doing so are killing a fuck load of civilians in the process. Sort of like Britain in WWII.
Just regular old warfare. I see.
I’ll pose a question back, how many civilian deaths/collateral damage does it take for it to be genocide in your eyes? What if the Israeli’s only killed 1 single civilian as collateral damage? 10? 100? 1000?
I don’t think you can put a number on it. Hitler would have still done a genocide if he only killed 1000 Jews. It’s about intent. His goal was to kill Jews because they were Jews. Just like Israel cut off water and food to Gazans because they were Gazans. But I mean of course there must be some minimum value, I guess only 1 dead could never really be a genocide. But if Hitler had only killed 100 but had done so because of their Jewish heritage and his final solution? I guess I would have to say it’s just an ineffective genocide. Or an “attempted” genocide.
To me, genocide requires intentional effort to end a group of people and/or their culture through specific and measurable actions. Some definitions agree with me, others don’t.
Pretty good. As I said I would add that it doesn’t have to be ending the group in whole, but that it has to be because of their membership of the group.
Intentional effort to end a group of people through specific and measurable actions… how about: bombing civilian areas and cutting off the necessities of life. Bombing areas you told civilians to move to. Bombing UN schools being used as shelter. Attacking hospitals housing the sick and injured. Killing journalists. Not allowing them to escape from this horror. Doesn’t this meet your definition perfectly?
This is the UN dude, I didn’t write it. What’s your definition?
I mean… This may not be the fantastic point you think it is.
In regards to nuclear weapons use in WWII, the dominant narrative is that the alternative is a ground invasion with greater loss of life. I guess the Allies just surrendering was an option to… but that’s would have lead to more genocide, no?
And while I know that’s the UN definition. I’m saying I disagree with it for being too broad and including most forms of warfare. I think actually planned slaughter of an entire group with the attempt of elimination is worth keeping a separate (and worse) category.
Most accept that the horrors of WWII committed by the Allies were ‘worth it’ to stop the more evil Axis. But if it actually was worth it is perhaps worth debating, I don’t disagree.
Yeah that was American propaganda at the time. Actual studies on Okinawa fighting suggest far fewer troop losses. The Japanese leadership themselves said the bombs were impressive but conventional bombing raids weren’t far off in power. They were far more scared of still being at war when Russia reached them.
No, that’s the dominant narrative in the US, but the data, even the US government then-contemporary data, doesn’t support that narrative in the slightest.
Any sources for that? I’ve never seen anything that indicated that Japan was going to surrender, just philosophizing about if it was justified to drop the bombs.
https://www.thenation.com/article/world/why-the-us-really-bombed-hiroshima/
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-05/hiroshima-bombing-did-not-lead-japanese-surrender-anniversary/6672616
Here’s a few
https://libcom.org/article/1945-us-responses-atomic-bombing-hiroshima-and-nagasaki
“Certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.”
“It always appeared to us that, atomic bomb or no atomic bomb, the Japanese were already on the verge of collapse.”
“Careful scholarly treatment of the records and manuscripts opened over the past few years has greatly enhanced our understanding of why Truman administration used atomic weapons against Japan. Experts continue to disagree on some issues, but critical questions have been answered. The consensus among scholars is the that the bomb was not needed to avoid an invasion of Japan. It is clear that alternatives to the bomb existed and that Truman and his advisers knew it.”
Just some speculation and philosophizing, like I said. It’s not even a consensus with historians.
Thanks for offering some links at least, though.
Personally, hearing that the actual generals that took part in that theater did not think it was necessary and that victory was assured as soon as a blockade was possible. That’s enough for me to believe the bombs being dropped were for other reasons other than for a surrender. Like a show of strength to the rest of the world. But that’s my own conclusion. It’s always important to hold some skepticism and seek out more sources imo
Yeah I mean there were probably options between surrender and nuclear warfare, but I think this is beside the point. Clearly it was at least collective punishment and a war crime, that’s how I would describe it.
It doesn’t include most forms of warfare because it has to be, “committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.” So the US in Afghanistan, despite being shitty, were not doing genocide. For example. The allied liberation of France? Fine. The goal was not to kill Germans, even though it was a necessary component.
Yeah I mean obviously putting people in extermination camps is worse than starving them, in a way, but also, if the numbers were the same, does it matter? Is the Holodomor “not as bad” as Pol Pot’s genocide?
What would you call this category you propose? And what word would you use for what Israel is doing?
Yes, a ground invasion. Which was mentioned in the previous comment. And no, I don’t think it was intended to ‘punish’ civilians, but rather to make clear that the Japanese empire could not win. A common claim is that it actually saved civilian lives.
Agreed. But they were killing a part of an ethnic group in the process. And it included civilians at times. Doesn’t seem vastly dissimilar. And the goal in the fire bombings of Germany was absolutely to kill German civilians and it was explicitly stated as such.
Yes, very much so. The intent and methods absolutely matter. 9/11 killed thousands of civilians, but it would absurd to consider it genocide.
Simply put, yes. But more importantly, they are fundamentally different things, which is what I’m pointing out.
Doesn’t matter to me as long as it’s agreed upon.
I’d probably just stick with warfare. Brutal and horrible warfare. They are waging war to destroy an enemy that attacked them, and in doing so are killing a fuck load of civilians in the process. Sort of like Britain in WWII.
I’ll pose a question back, how many civilian deaths/collateral damage does it take for it to be genocide in your eyes? What if the Israeli’s only killed 1 single civilian as collateral damage? 10? 100? 1000?
To me, genocide requires intentional effort to end a group of people and/or their culture through specific and measurable actions. Some definitions agree with me, others don’t.
Here I was talking about intentional starvation vs just straight up killing. So of course this wouldn’t mean 9/11 was genocide. But intentional starvation could still be a method of genocide if that was the intent.
Saying one is worse is a bit of a hot take. But sure. But the “fundamental difference” doesn’t seem so important to me, it’s just a matter of approach. If you choose to use starvation instead of shooting them in a mass grave is it really so different? Like choosing a different weapon. Would you ever consider a mass starvation to be a genocide?
Just regular old warfare. I see.
I don’t think you can put a number on it. Hitler would have still done a genocide if he only killed 1000 Jews. It’s about intent. His goal was to kill Jews because they were Jews. Just like Israel cut off water and food to Gazans because they were Gazans. But I mean of course there must be some minimum value, I guess only 1 dead could never really be a genocide. But if Hitler had only killed 100 but had done so because of their Jewish heritage and his final solution? I guess I would have to say it’s just an ineffective genocide. Or an “attempted” genocide.
Pretty good. As I said I would add that it doesn’t have to be ending the group in whole, but that it has to be because of their membership of the group.
Intentional effort to end a group of people through specific and measurable actions… how about: bombing civilian areas and cutting off the necessities of life. Bombing areas you told civilians to move to. Bombing UN schools being used as shelter. Attacking hospitals housing the sick and injured. Killing journalists. Not allowing them to escape from this horror. Doesn’t this meet your definition perfectly?