×
all 106 comments
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–]DrHolmes52 76 points77 points  (20 children)

I wouldn't have placed a 50k number on it, but I thought Japanese, Koreans, anyone else from occupied areas, POWs (Americans, British Australian, etc.) were all killed/effected long term.

[–]KerPop42 43 points44 points  (1 child)

50k? as in a full 1 in three killed?

[–]LydditeShellsWhat, you egg? 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Yes. Japan used widespread forced labor and Koreans lived in far poorer conditions while also not receiving much care after the bombings

[–]ToumaKazusa1 28 points29 points  (1 child)

While I haven't done any reading about this topic in particular, those numbers seem a bit high, given that total estimates for deaths from the atom bombs are between 150,000-250,000.

[–]withinallreason 6 points7 points  (0 children)

It's likely close to accurate. A large chunk of Japanese industries were serviced by slave labor, of which a huge amount was Korean. The usual number I see cited is 1 in 4, which would actually fit your mid point at 200k perfectly.

[–]sofa_king_awesome 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Wolverine was also there

[–]ems_telegramWhat, you egg? 133 points134 points  (35 children)

This is less about the meme and more about the general subject (and the comments section) but a vast majority of people, Americans especially, do not understand that most of the proportion of the controversy about the morality of the bombs is not entirely genuine.

After WW2 ended, the Cold War started. Imagine for a moment why all the top generals and staff involved in the atomic bombings would all agree that it was such a terrible, regrettable decision. When nuclear apocalypse is hanging over your head, hardly anyone will say anything positive about the use of atomic bombs. "Oh no it was so terrible. We shouldn've never ever done it, we're so sorrry. No one on Earth should ever use these bombs in war ever again." Their laments are not so much heartfelt apologies as they are suggestions that we don't end the world.

Now of course, they're bombs that killed people, and that's awful, so no one change the subject pretend I'm saying that dropping them was moral. I'm just here to remind everyone that the last 70 years of Western culture has overblown the question of their morality and that arguing over it is pointless. Please do not fall for ragebait three generations old.

Edit: to be clear, yes, there is not zero deserved controversy. They're bombs. I don't think it should be as hot a topic as they are, though, especially today.

[–]FerdinandTheGiantFilthy weeb 47 points48 points  (3 children)

I’m not sure this is accurate. Dr. Alex Wellerstein talks about it a bit in his blog The Decision to Use the Bomb: A Consensus View?

There was controversy surrounding the bombings immediately, just as there was contemporary controversy surrounding the bombing of Dresden. As Wellerstein points out, one of the reasons that Henry Stimson, the then Secretary of War, would release “The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb” was to respond to the ongoing debate surrounding the bombings. There has certainly been a shift in the discussion since the 1940s, but that’s in large part to new information becoming public, not merely cold war anti-bomb paranoia. For instance, the meeting minutes for the Targeting Committee wouldn’t be declassified until the mid-1970s.

[–]Mopman43 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Is there anything that really separates Dresden from all the other cities that were bombed?

[–]FerdinandTheGiantFilthy weeb 3 points4 points  (0 children)

There are a few things that distinguish Dresden, but one is that it was particularly well known for its architecture, it was often referred to as the “Florence of the Elbe”, and it was also understood to contain a large number of refugees.

More importantly though, Dresden appears to have been a shift, albeit a brief on, in how the American press discussed the bombing of cities. Prior to this, coverage generally focused on the perceived military necessity of attacks, often emphasizing industrial targets and damage while downplaying civilian casualties and the role of “morale bombing.” With Dresden, there was a shift, with some in the press beginning to explicitly raise the possibility that the Allies were engaging in “terror bombing.” The military, as well as the Secretary of War, quickly rejected that characterization, but the bombing raised eyebrows. Stimson was specifically asked by reporters whether there had been a decision to abandon the stated policy of precision bombing, and he assured them that there had not, but what’s interesting, however, is that Stimson didn’t seem to confident this was actually the case. He subsequently went on to press the USAAF for answers about the conduct and justification of the bombing. The Air Force however largely brushed off his concerns and in the end Stimson ultimately did not pursue the matter much further, though he would express that he had grievances with our firebombing.

[–]NovelBattle 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The destruction of infrastructure and chaos that the bombing would cause, specifically hampering the civilian evacuation for people fleeing Soviets was heavily discussed and one of the main reason they decided to attack Dresden over other more significant military targets.

It was almost entirely targeted for its railyards and majority of the industrial areas that were "legitimate military targets" were completely ignored.

[–]Archkhaan 33 points34 points  (6 children)

Also a lot of pressure from anti nuclear organizations to demonize them, plus pressure from “pacifist” organizations that really want to make any conflict seem evil.

[–]ScorpionTheInsectThe OG Lord Buckethead 16 points17 points  (3 children)

Idk man I’d expect the anti-nuclear orgs to demonize nuclear weapons and the anti-war orgs to demonize war. Kinda seems like that’s their raison d’être.

[–]Archkhaan 10 points11 points  (2 children)

I mean yeah but I don’t have to like it lol

Nuclear power is probably the greatest thing humanity has ever developed and the best way to save the environment and nuclear weapons have created an age of nearly unparalleled global peace (at least between the major powers whos wars tend to cause far more devastation)

Nukes are objectively great, and anti nuke orgs irritate me.

And decrying all wars as evil and unneeded is just historically wrong. Several times wars have been absolutely the right choice, including the one where nukes were used.

[–]ScorpionTheInsectThe OG Lord Buckethead 5 points6 points  (1 child)

I didn’t say you have to like it, but the fact that these organizations exist and do their jobs is not proof of a “fabricated controversy”. That’s just political activism. Activism that annoys you does not equal a fabricated controversy.

“Unparalleled peace” that’s because instead of fighting each other directly, they waged proxy wars in other people’s countries. There is literally a war right now because of the implication of nuclear arm development. Both of those “troublesome” nations are involved in active ongoing wars that are destructive in other people’s countries.

During the Cold War we were this close to a nuclear war because a detection system failed. Even aside from active arm conflicts, the United States accidentally dropped two nukes on itself, on two separate occasions, and the only reason they didn’t lost both Carolina states was because they were lucky. They have also LOST a couple nukes several times, like, they forgot where they put their super duper dangerous weapons of mass destruction.

Clearly, there are a bit more implications related to nukes that serve the purpose of intimidating other nations and ending wars than nuclear energy, aren’t there? Nuclear energy is just the silver lining. We need the power of nukes to be placed in responsible and reasonable hands, and Idk, we seem to be in a dire need of those in world governments right now.

Sorry but you’ll have a hard time convincing me that the United States is good at determining what’s a just cause for war. I’d rather the world’s biggest military who has the power to fuck up several generations in other countries to be just a tiny bit aware that war is kinda bad. I really think it’s important that you guys have that discussion even if it annoys you.

[–]greenthumbbum2025 7 points8 points  (1 child)

Nuclear war, something famously not demonic nor evil, just has gotten a bad rap from propaganda

[–]Archkhaan 5 points6 points  (0 children)

You realize the war being nuclear isn’t the problem, it’s that two nations are willing to annihilate each other that’s the problem

[–]JohnnyElRedCasual, non-participatory KGB election observer 27 points28 points  (7 children)

Yeah, dropping atomic bombs was immoral. But so was fire bombing Tokyo and other cities with more conventional weapons. And the number of deaths on those bombing wasn't that far off either.

[–]Dagordae 40 points41 points  (1 child)

Turns out war is an intrinsically immoral endeavor.

[–]D3k4s 10 points11 points  (0 children)

*Laughs in Mongol, while stirring the pot with liquefied human fat.

[–]D3k4s 12 points13 points  (2 children)

Same for Dresden and Leipzig for example. I just don't agree that we shouldn't question/discuss the morality of it. If anything we should learn from history and not make the same mistakes of the past.

[–]p_pio 11 points12 points  (1 child)

But the iaaue is: what lesson we take? War is wrong? Sure. But if French and British decided Austria is worth the fighting, Painter would be just curiosity and Holocaust wouldn't happend.

So suddenly by just looking at totality of history you got only one strong lesson: morality ain't obvious in immoral world.

So were bombings wrong? Some of them? Most of them? All of them? Some of them?

And suddenly question about Tokyo, about Hiroshima and Nagasaki etc becomes more complex.

[–]D3k4s 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree with you to an extent. But what I'm advocating against is the ideia that we shouldn't discuss it. I'm not judging if the conclusions are worth it or not.

I've said this in another reply, we obviously shouldn't judge past events with todays standards. But I also think You're making it a bit too simplistic, when it comes to taking lessons from those.

Were all the bombings wrong? From a humanitarian pov sure. But these regimes also needed to be stopped.

The big difference with these bombs, was the fact that we knew to an extent that the aftermath would be felt many years later. Unlike convencional bombs. So It wasn't just business as usual.

[–]ForemanSpike 7 points8 points  (1 child)

People talk about these bombings of Japan with a sort of implication that they weren't brought on by Japan being expansionist fascists. They were little different than Nazi Germany in their wrongdoings, they just didn't have death factories or were as obsessed with race.

[–]CABRALFAN27 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

People talk like that because they don't generally consider every member of a nationality or ethnicity to be guilty of the crimes of the government they live under (I mean, some people absolutely do, but I generally call such people fascists obsessed with race).

Were some of the civilians killed in the Atomic and Firebombings Fascists who supported their country's expansionism? Definitely. Were some opposed to or unaware of the IJA's atrocities, maybe even actively resisting them? Also yes. Were some just trying to keep their heads down and go about their daily lives regardless of what their government was doing? Most certainly, yes. Were some children who shouldn't have to bear the burden of being politically conscious, or babies who didn't even have a conception of politics yet? Again, yes.

It's the latter three categories people are talking about when they focus on the bombings, especially the third. No one's going "Oh, no, the poor Imperial government!"

[–]ScorpionTheInsectThe OG Lord Buckethead 8 points9 points  (7 children)

Do you have some good source for that? Because there was a real petition from some Project Manhattan scientists against the use of the atomic bomb without prior demonstration and giving Japan a chance to surrender first. I’m not discussing whether or not the bombing itself was immoral, but it seems that at least 70 scientists who contributed to building the bombs thought that it was immoral since July 1945.

Considering that Groves wanted to persecute the head petitioner under the Espionage Act, which means there were some real risks in putting forth a moral plea against the bombing (even an unsuccessful one), I don’t think it’s fair to write off their concerns as fabricated controversy (or overblown, or not genuine).

Okay, it’s not fair to ask you to prove a negative (that there were no “authentic” controversies related to the bombings). But, I mean, how do you distinguish political campaigns out of genuine moral objections that were successful in their objectives vs fabricated controversies? Obviously if nuclear arms proponents feel very strongly against the bombings, they would campaign to change the minds of top brass in the US military, people who have decision making power over future use of nuclear bombs. Or they would make it unpopular with the public to make such decision. That’s not proof of a fabricated controversy, is it? It’s just activism, I think?

I guess what I’m asking is what proves that it was a fabricated controversy, or disingenuous, and not just the result of an effective activist campaign.

[–]ems_telegramWhat, you egg? 2 points3 points  (3 children)

I can't provide a genuine academic source for this, there probably is one but I didn't use one to write that anyways. This is mostly just common sense and historiography.

And to be clear, I do not intend to say that the controversy is entirely fake. Just that it is only as controversial as it is (compared to other Allied acts of war) because of the Cold War and the fear surrounding nuclear war.

I won't say I'm an expert on the scientist's request not to use it the way it was, but I'm sure both you and I would try to find excuses to potentially prevent being directly responsible for killing people if asked.

[–]ScorpionTheInsectThe OG Lord Buckethead 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Okay, so what common sense makes you say that it was “mostly” a fabricated controversy as oppose to simply a successful political campaign out of genuine moral objections?

The scientists’ petition is in public domain and it’s, honestly, really short. It’s literally one A4 page. I think it’s clear they were very aware that an atomic bomb would kill people (that’s why they didn’t want Nazi Germany to make it first, duh). They simply wanted Truman in particular, and the United States government in general, to consider the future implications of unleashing the atomic bomb. As funny as “huh my le bomb kill le people” meme is for the 1000th time, that was not the extent of Oppenheimer’s and the physicists’ reaction to the bombings. They knew, obviously, that they were making a weapon. They thought, perhaps naively, that their government would be cautious and responsible when making the decision to use that weapon. Hence the petition; they really believed that they could make the US government listen to a moral plea.

Lastly even though this is just a meme sub, I think you made a fairly irresponsible claim without a clear source or any objective facts other than your own “common sense”. I apologize if that comes off as rude. You are right that people in general do not know why the scientists objected to the bombings. People seem to assume that it’s just about the morality of using it against Japan, when it’s more about what comes after Japan.

[–]ems_telegramWhat, you egg? -1 points0 points  (1 child)

I have changed the first paragraph of my initial comment to exclude the word fabricate, as I did not intend to imply that this was like a government psyop intended to trick the public or something. Rather my point is that the controversy of the bombs is often removed from the history of the period people wrote about it in, which significantly demonizes the whole ordeal more than it is worth, or at least in comparison to similar atrocities.

My apologies.

[–]ScorpionTheInsectThe OG Lord Buckethead 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Sorry that doesn’t really change my question. What makes you say the concerns about morality are not genuine? It seems you became aware of the Szilárd petition literally just now.

Your government is, as we speak, at war with another nation for the supposed purpose of forcing them to stop developing a nuclear bomb. A war that your government started. I think now is a pretty good time to discuss the moral implications of the nuclear bombings lol

[–]D3k4s 0 points1 point  (2 children)

There was also the fact that they were not 100% Sure that cracking the Atom Wouldn't just cause a never ending chain reaction. Of course there were several theories and mathematical calculations that disproved this. But you can never truly be sure of something like this. So for many, that possibility remained.

[–]ScorpionTheInsectThe OG Lord Buckethead 4 points5 points  (1 child)

I agree, there was that concern among the physicists, but the Szilárd Petition comes from moral objection against using the bombs because they feared an upcoming nuclear arms race.

They made it clear that the only reason they cooperated with Project Manhattan was the fear of Nazi Germany making the weapon first. Once Germany surrendered, they thought that dropping the atomic bomb as the means to end a war, without warning, is immoral because it would start a race to the bottom, and ultimately bring harm to Americans and the world alike. They considered it a moral obligation for themselves, and for the United States broadly speaking, to wield such power with caution because they were the first to develop the bomb. To lift the rock and let the snake out, as that one little indie movie you might have heard of called “Oppenheimer” put it.

I think what people actually misunderstand is why some Manhattan Project scientists and other physicists morally opposed the bombs. Albert Einstein was in the same camp. Years later, can we confidently say their concerns were unfounded?

[–]D3k4s 2 points3 points  (0 children)

100% Agree, was just adding more "fun facts", not making the case that their reason against using it was based on that fact.

They made it clear that the only reason they cooperated with Project Manhattan was the fear of Nazi Germany making the weapon first.

A lot of people don't know that Nazi Germany was in the race, the allies feared this very much. the raid against the Norwegian Heavy water facility was but one of the many efforts to cripple their ability to progress/make the bomb.

Their concerns were def not unfounded. We still see consequences of the bombings to this day. It wasn't just the indiscriminate use of a weapon of mass destruction, it was the long lasting effects as well.

[–]D3k4s 10 points11 points  (4 children)

I sorta get where you're coming from. But your argument is a bit shacky.

If I understood it well, you're saying that the world needed to see the horrors of the Atomic Bomb to cement the mutual destruction scenario and in doing so insured long lasting peace.

But I don't actually need to eat shit to know I won't like it. How many nuclear tests were performed? How many of these shocked the world due to their destructive power? How many observers of these tests ended up dying from exposure? The power was well known whether it was used against an enemy or a dummy.

I do apologize if this is not the point you're trying to make. But I don't think any human that deserves to be called that should ever not question the morality of the indiscriminate use of a weapon of mass destruction.

I'm European btw not American.

[–]thegreattwos 0 points1 point  (1 child)

But I don't actually need to eat shit to know I won't like it.

But...that the problem in the first place. You already know what shit is. Nuclear power is practically unknown at the time. It took nearly a fleet of bomber to level a city. Now imagine all it took was JUST one and with just ONE bomb. That shit is terrifying.

[–]D3k4s 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Unknown by the general population? Most likely. At the state level? Not really.

Nazi Germany was looking into getting one for example. Look at the Norwegian heavy water sabotage, The allies knew the potential for destructive power.

Moreover These could have been dropped anywhere else in the world, and the result would have been the same. Of course the images are shocking and terrifying like you correctly pointed out. But ultimately at the decision making level, what's taken into account is the destruction power, and the aftermath.

Again I'm not saying that by the standards of the time it was a particularly hard decision to make, considering everything that had already occurred. What I'm saying is that now we should question it. Just like we question tons of historical events.

What's wrong IMO is to judge historical events and personalities with todays standards.

[–]LordCypher40k -1 points0 points  (1 child)

But I don't actually need to eat shit to know I won't like it.

Knowing eating shit is bad is intrinsic for a human. By the time you're 2, you'd already understand shit is disgusting and not something you want to put in your mouth.

Meanwhile, humans naturally cannot comprehend large numbers. We empathize with faces, not numbers. Our minds simply cannot abstractly put a face on each individual or fully believe the death toll. It isn't until you've seen the aftermath of the destruction or the graves do you fully comprehend something as a tragedy. It's one thing to see in the news that a hundred people had died to an earthquake; it's another to be standing at the mass funeral seeing the aftermath first hand.

[–]D3k4s -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Fuck me dude, I read your comment while eating, and now I regret using that comparison.

Yes you're mostly right, the shock value is much bigger. And you could argue that due to the horrors of WW2, Europe choose to pursue a peaceful future with other European Powers.

But I Still maintain that the simply demonstration of destructive power would have been enough to demonstrate how terrifying it would be to use on your enemies. I think it doesn't take a lot of imagination to picture what would happen in that case. Today's nuclear weapons are much more devastating, and nuclear testing is enough to showcase that you really don't want to fuck with that.

To clarify, I'm not saying that merely demonstrating it would have been enough for Japan to surrender. That's not the argument I'm making.

[–]sinowarrior01 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's the most moral thing to do, it's quicker, relatively cheaper and caused even less causalities than fire bombing, and definitely far less risk to the bomber force

[–]vdcsX -1 points0 points  (1 child)

I cant see any reason why we shouldnt talk about it. Whitewashing murican history again...?

[–]ems_telegramWhat, you egg? 0 points1 point  (0 children)

God forbid I bring period relevant nuance into a history discussion. Sometimes Murica worse than pop history. Rarely, Murica is actually better than pop history. If I was whitewashing I'd say they deserved it.

[–]Palamania 12 points13 points  (2 children)

I dont remember that from the Hiroshima museum. Someone correct me if I’m wrong.

[–]FerdinandTheGiantFilthy weeb 4 points5 points  (0 children)

A glance online suggests they acknowledge the presence and deaths of Koreans in the bombings

[–]Aozora_Tenwa 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I went there and they talk extensively about victims from all nationalities including Koreans.

[–]D3k4s 10 points11 points  (0 children)

*MacArthur reading this

See? My suggestion wasn't that bad.

(MacArthur wanted to drop some nukes on the Chinese/N Koreans during the Korean War)

[–]trashthrowtrashlad 14 points15 points  (1 child)

yeeaaah something doesn't add up here. Unless you're seriously impliying that every 3-4 person was Korean in both cities.

[–]LydditeShellsWhat, you egg? 28 points29 points  (0 children)

The target cities for the atomic bombs were chosen for containing large war industry. Many of the workers in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were Korean slaves. Hiroshima had a population of about 420,000 people, 140,000 of which were Korean due to Japan bringing them over for forced labor or to escape man-made famine created by Japan’s colonial policies in Korea.

[–]Archkhaan 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Your number is inflated, but yeah prisoners and captives of the Japanese were also caught in the bombings, that should be pretty widely known since it’s a basic fact in most history textbooks at least as early as the late 90’s

[–]NeilJosephRyan 2 points3 points  (1 child)

It would be pretty weird to go out of you way to point this out while teaching. If someone is aware of the Korean minority in Japan, then of course they'd probably assume some Koreans died. We don't generally talk about the handful of Americans who were killed by the bomb either.

[–]Gold_Ad1772 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mean, the reason why Korean were there in the first place was because they were basically forced laborers working for their colonizer country. A lot of Chinese workers also worked there, but the Japanese government turned a blind eye on them due to the discrimination and still prevalent superiority they felt over other countries. It is a topic worth talking about due how much Japan plays victim over the bombs when at least 20% of the victims were there because of Japan

[–]PixelGray38 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Estimated to be 200000 ish victims overall of both bombings, so Koreans would have been roughly a quarter of those

[–]Imaginary-Group1414 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The story of the legendary baseball player Isao Harimoto is well-known in Japan.　　　 He was a Zainichi Korean living in Hiroshima. His older sister suffered horrific burns and died right before his eyes due to the atomic bombing. 　After the war, he spent his days fighting with yakuza—venting the frustration of the discrimination he had endured—but a mentor encouraged him to take up baseball, leading him to become a professional player. Despite having a physical impairment in his hand, he went on to record the most hits in NPB history. 　However, because of the atomic bombing, he harbored a dislike for the United States and was opposed to MLB; yet, seeing Ichiro's success eventually changed his mind, and he came to accept it.

[–]femboyisbestboyKilroy was here 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Didn't know that so many pleasure girls died because of the bombings.

[–]IceCreamMeatballs 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I wonder how many more Koreans would have died from nukes had Curtis LeMay gotten his way in the Korean War

[–]Jura_Narod 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is something I always bring up in response to justification of the use of t he atomic bombs. Not only did 10s-of-thousands of Koreans die, saying they were just “workers” is understating it. They were basically slaves forced over to Japan to work in terrible conditions and have essentially no rights (with thousands of women being held as sex slaves) as a colonized people subjected to a fascist regime. What the Korean people were subjugated to in the whole first half of the 20th century was truly horrific.

[–]plants11235813 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

People are people

[–]Chudsaviet 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why are you scared of mentioning atomic bombs?

[–]its-null 0 points1 point  (0 children)

there’s a memorial in japan for the koreans who were killed by the atomic bombs, many of whom were being held against their will

[–]generalchase 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wait you are saying that 1/3rd to 1/6th of everyone killed in the atomic bombings of Japan was from korea?

[–]Gold_Ad1772 0 points1 point  (0 children)

THANK YOU! They aren't recognized enough when literal Japanese survivors aren't recognized rhat well in the first place. Imagine being forced to move to Japan and then the government doesn't do anything for you when you are affected by the bombs

[–]Jhud6669 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There is a manga that actually talks about it, Barefoot Gen