Key, I think, is in emphasizing that opposing the nukes dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki is not about putting down US imperialists in order to defend Japanese imperialists. It’s about understanding the barbarity of US imperialism and also recognizing that certain kinds of acts of war are not acceptable on principle, no matter how barbaric the enemy has been; and perhaps more importantly, that being barbaric is not necessary to win a war.
One of the main historical arguments surrounding it is this idea of whether it was “necessary” to do it, in order to end the war. But not only does the historical evidence point to the war being all but over (and they did it anyway, in spite of not needing to), even setting that aside, the presumption of the USian argument for justification (the bogus argument that if they didn’t do it, a ton of USian lives would have been lost in a land invasion) implies that US lives are worth more than Japanese lives; worse, it implies that US soldier lives are worth more than Japanese civilian lives. Even if you go with some “shared responsibility” genocidal-adjacent narrative that some horrible people were among those civilians, the argument still comes out with the implication that US lives are more valuable. The argument also assumes that if the bombs weren’t used, US lives lost in a land invasion would have been the only way to end the war, which sounds ridiculous on a cursory inspection, that that was the only way to make it happen when they already had air power and had bombed over 20 cities?
It’s worth noting that the USian narrative in defense of its bombings does not give a single shit about China or Chinese lives. The US was not trying to save China from Japanese imperialism and it has been trying to undermine communist China since the communists gained power. The US took over for Japan in brutalizing Korea and certainly would have done the same in China if they could have.
The one thing I’m not clear on is to what extent China had already liberated from Japanese imperialism before the US brutalized Japan. If the US’s bombings of 20+ cities made it any easier on those efforts, or if they’d already more or less won at home too. Because if it did make it any easier on them indirectly, I could see why someone growing up in China and knowing the horrors inflicted on their people might have trouble viewing that indirect help as a bad thing. But if liberation had already been more or less done, then I’d think at that point, it’s little more than vengeance to be in favor of it; but still would not be vengeance they actually inflicted and instead would be barbarity carried out by people who would gladly be racist against them too.
If the Japanese weren’t cooked in 1945, with their war on China, and the rest of East and Southeast Asia, uh the Soviets were there to extinguish Imperial Japanese forces in Manchukuo and Korea, joining the war shortly after wrapping the European front.
It’s worth noting that the USian narrative in defense of its bombings does not give a single shit about China or Chinese lives. The US was not trying to save China from Japanese imperialism and it has been trying to undermine communist China since the communists gained power. The US took over for Japan in brutalizing Korea and certainly would have done the same in China if they could have.
It can be said, that as much as the Japanese were the target, U.S used the nuclear bomb to set an example to terrorize potential and contemporary rivals and allies alike, into submission, if not surrender. I think this includes the USSR, who was quickly gaining ground near or on Imperial Japan, albeit on a stretched scale.
Good points. Reminds me, I’m not sure to what extent it’s been solidified as a historical argument, but I know there’s a possibility the US did the nuclear bombings primarily as a means to ensure that Japan would surrender to the US on the US’s terms, rather than Japan losing more directly to the USSR. In other words, it may have been less about “ending the war” and more about solidifying US regional power over Japan. IIRC, the argument goes something like that the USSR’s invasion of Manchuria was imminent and the US knew this, so rather than risk that event resulting in Japan surrendering to the USSR, they dropped the bombs to end things as fast as possible on US terms.
Key, I think, is in emphasizing that opposing the nukes dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki is not about putting down US imperialists in order to defend Japanese imperialists. It’s about understanding the barbarity of US imperialism and also recognizing that certain kinds of acts of war are not acceptable on principle, no matter how barbaric the enemy has been; and perhaps more importantly, that being barbaric is not necessary to win a war.
One of the main historical arguments surrounding it is this idea of whether it was “necessary” to do it, in order to end the war. But not only does the historical evidence point to the war being all but over (and they did it anyway, in spite of not needing to), even setting that aside, the presumption of the USian argument for justification (the bogus argument that if they didn’t do it, a ton of USian lives would have been lost in a land invasion) implies that US lives are worth more than Japanese lives; worse, it implies that US soldier lives are worth more than Japanese civilian lives. Even if you go with some “shared responsibility” genocidal-adjacent narrative that some horrible people were among those civilians, the argument still comes out with the implication that US lives are more valuable. The argument also assumes that if the bombs weren’t used, US lives lost in a land invasion would have been the only way to end the war, which sounds ridiculous on a cursory inspection, that that was the only way to make it happen when they already had air power and had bombed over 20 cities?
It’s worth noting that the USian narrative in defense of its bombings does not give a single shit about China or Chinese lives. The US was not trying to save China from Japanese imperialism and it has been trying to undermine communist China since the communists gained power. The US took over for Japan in brutalizing Korea and certainly would have done the same in China if they could have.
The one thing I’m not clear on is to what extent China had already liberated from Japanese imperialism before the US brutalized Japan. If the US’s bombings of 20+ cities made it any easier on those efforts, or if they’d already more or less won at home too. Because if it did make it any easier on them indirectly, I could see why someone growing up in China and knowing the horrors inflicted on their people might have trouble viewing that indirect help as a bad thing. But if liberation had already been more or less done, then I’d think at that point, it’s little more than vengeance to be in favor of it; but still would not be vengeance they actually inflicted and instead would be barbarity carried out by people who would gladly be racist against them too.
And that’s not getting into the Soviet factor
If the Japanese weren’t cooked in 1945, with their war on China, and the rest of East and Southeast Asia, uh the Soviets were there to extinguish Imperial Japanese forces in Manchukuo and Korea, joining the war shortly after wrapping the European front.
It can be said, that as much as the Japanese were the target, U.S used the nuclear bomb to set an example to terrorize potential and contemporary rivals and allies alike, into submission, if not surrender. I think this includes the USSR, who was quickly gaining ground near or on Imperial Japan, albeit on a stretched scale.
Good points. Reminds me, I’m not sure to what extent it’s been solidified as a historical argument, but I know there’s a possibility the US did the nuclear bombings primarily as a means to ensure that Japan would surrender to the US on the US’s terms, rather than Japan losing more directly to the USSR. In other words, it may have been less about “ending the war” and more about solidifying US regional power over Japan. IIRC, the argument goes something like that the USSR’s invasion of Manchuria was imminent and the US knew this, so rather than risk that event resulting in Japan surrendering to the USSR, they dropped the bombs to end things as fast as possible on US terms.