I don't know that those were the only two alternatives.
> Please tell us what other strategy you advocate.
"Tell us": who is "us"? In any case, I'm thankfully not in the situation to decide, nor am I an armchair general, so I'll have to excuse myself from invading or bombing Japan.
To state my position once again: the narrative popular in the US, that the atomic bombings were justified as a terrible necessity and that they actually saved lives ("Japanese lives", like someone else stated) is only popular in the US, and it exists mostly to enable them to retain their sense of being the good guys. Other countries, unburdened by the necessity of always making the US look like the good guys, don't favor this particular narrative.
People in the comment section of this forum where we are having an argument about this situation.
> In any case, I'm thankfully not in the situation to decide, nor am I an armchair general, so I'll have to excuse myself from invading or bombing Japan.
Seems like the simple way out.
> is only popular in the US
Its actually popular with everybody who has studied WW2 in detail. I'm European and I watch content by other Europeans who agree with the argument.
In terms of popular opinion, I don't think most nations think about it much at all.
> it exists mostly to enable them to retain their sense of being the good guys
I disagree. You can be the good guy without arguing that it was the better option for Japan.
> Other countries, unburdened by the necessity of always making the US look like the good guys, don't favor this particular narrative.
Its a simple matter of military strategy. Anybody that has studied military history can engaged in those arguments. Ending a war is difficult, and threw-out history we see different how they can end.
Looking at the strategic options at the time and doing the best you can at evaluating the potential casualties will lead you to the conclusion that you don't seem to like.
If you disagree with that assessment, then you have to make an argument for an alternative strategy that would have saved more people.
Argument like that could potentially be made. One might argue for example that going away from unconditional surrender, and trying to make some kind of deal where Japan could keep Korea or something like that could have been made.
But again, you actually have to make that argument if you want to be the a moral critic.
You're trying to pull somebody into an argument that they're not interested in. The argument they were making is that approving of something that causes Japanese suffering because it causes Japanese suffering is not the same as approving of something that causes Japanese suffering for its strategic value or necessity to end the war.
You're arguing against a position that the person you're arguing against hasn't taken.
"It's a simple matter", "seems like the simple way out".
Well, if you have it all figured out, why engage with me in conversation?
> Its actually popular with everybody who has studied WW2 in detail
This is false, and an empty assertion. So the people who disagree with you haven't studied WW2 in detail? A variant of the "all non-populist historians agree that [...]".
> Well, if you have it all figured out, why engage with me in conversation?
I don't have it figured out. What I am trying to do is explain your policy. I'm trying to get you to commit to an actual viable policy rather then doing moral grandstanding.
> This is false, and an empty assertion. So the people who disagree with you haven't studied WW2 in detail? A variant of the "all non-populist historians agree that [...]".
It reflects my own experience with studying the topic, in media, books, podcast, forums and so on.
And generally the people who disagree refuse to make detailed historical argument or proposing alternative solutions and just relay on moral grandstanding.
In Australia, for undergraduate students studying history, this is the most commonly assigned essay topic in World War 2 studies.
Most of the students go into it thinking like you.
Nearly all of them change their mind once they look more deeply at the evidence.
The atomic bombings are a classic case where the popular assumed narrative differs significantly from the facts.
And that’s the reason this is assigned as an essay topic. The idea is to sober up the students a little bit and help them understand that their neat worldviews (USA bad!) are not reflected in the messy reality.
Thanks for your reply. One thing I want to point out, because I saw someone else also ask me this:
> [...] help them understand that their neat worldviews (USA bad!)
I don't know about Australian students, but at least I am not saying "USA bad". I'm describing a particular narrative about the atomic bombings as being fueled by the necessity of Americans to sustain their perception of always being the good guys.
For some reason some people read this and conclude I believe the US were the bad guys.
I obviously believe the atomic bombings were a war crime; but more generally, I do not believe the US were the bad guys in WW2. All moral grays and downright immoral actions committed aside, the US was on the good side of that war, and Japan on the bad side. I hope that clears up that part of my position.
> Please tell us what other strategy you advocate.
"Tell us": who is "us"? In any case, I'm thankfully not in the situation to decide, nor am I an armchair general, so I'll have to excuse myself from invading or bombing Japan.
To state my position once again: the narrative popular in the US, that the atomic bombings were justified as a terrible necessity and that they actually saved lives ("Japanese lives", like someone else stated) is only popular in the US, and it exists mostly to enable them to retain their sense of being the good guys. Other countries, unburdened by the necessity of always making the US look like the good guys, don't favor this particular narrative.