| Kasz216 said: It seems to be... since you pretend it was some huge vatican plot... when it clearly wasn't... and the book the article refrenced showed that it wasn't... and no... 3/4ths of the population was about the expected death toll. Even if you take it as exagerrated far less japanese died then would have under any other plan. If the US didn't us Nuclear weapons... everyone would be upset that the US could of ended the war with far less japanese casualties with 2 bombs but didn't and instead insisted on dragging out the war to kill and demoralize the japanese as much as possible. It was by far the best solution to end the war. If you think there was a better solution.... name it.
Though at the end of the day... plain and simple, you were wrong. You jumped to wrong conclusions based soley out of what you wished to be true. Black and whte thinking is and jumping to conclusions what leads to things like proactive wars, and holocausts... not thinking critically about things and looking at why people make desicions. |
Three quarters of the population would be more than any war in history, it's not a reasonable estimate. The Americans weren't going to commit systematic genocide and that's what would be required for that kind of death toll.
Also Hiroshima and Nagasaki were undoubtably atrocities committed against a civilian population. The cities themselves were certainly not military targets. That doesn't mean you can't build up some argument for it being the right course in the circumstances and avoiding more casualties than it caused, but it's wrong to ignore what the attacks were and what they were aimed against.
