• chaogomu@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    54
    ·
    1 year ago

    WW2, we only joined because Japan attacked. Otherwise, there were elements of the US population that were cheering for Hitler.

    • davel [he/him]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      36
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      We also nuked two cities, for reasons much less honorable or necessary than the one we are told.

      • Nacktmull@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Don´t tell that to the average US American though, they really hate hearing this truth.

        • TheSanSabaSongbird@lemdro.id
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Any respected historian on the subject will tell you that it’s way more complicated and nuanced than your average social media user is aware of. If, like Truman, you honestly believed that using atomic bombs on Japan would ultimately result in less loss of life, on a purely mathematical basis it was the only moral decision.

          • Nacktmull@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            The idea of using the most powerful weapon in existence, a weapon with destructive powers never seen before, that of all weapons can kill the most people in one hit - 140.000 people in Hiroshima alone - to “reduce loss of life” and then telling yourself that it was the moral thing to do, must require some serious mental gymnastics, lmao.

        • davel [he/him]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          19
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Two reasons, I think:

          • So Japan would unconditionally surrender to the US instead of (conditionally or unconditionally) surrendering to the USSR.
          • As a warning to the USSR to not spread communism further. The Cold War started even before WWII ended.
          • TheSanSabaSongbird@lemdro.id
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Close. What they were worried about was a hot war with the Soviets. There was also a great deal of uncertainty about Japanese willingness to continue to fight. It’s simply not the case that they had clear unambiguous intelligence on Japanese leadership’s intentions, which makes sense since there were several schools of thought among the Japanese.

          • cooljacob204@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            9
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Japan was not closer to conditionally surrendering to the USSR instead of the US. Even if they were that doesn’t magically make their war with the US end.

            The reason for the bombs being dropped is very clear and you’re free to read countless books, articles, papers on it.

            The Cold War started even before WWII ended.

            Yes but not every choice during WW2 was about countering communism. We supplied them with an absolute ton of weapons and cutting edge vehicles, planes during the war. The threat of the axis/fascism far outweighed the threat of communism spreading at the time.

            • davel [he/him]@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              12
              ·
              1 year ago

              The reason for the bombs being dropped is very clear and you’re free to read countless books, articles, papers on it.

              I’ve read the same arguments & documents as every other red-blooded American, but unlike most I’ve also read the counterarguments.

            • JohnnyEnzyme@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Weren’t the nukes also dropped because Japan’s highest-level commanders were dead-set on fighting more or less to the end, which would have caused horrific loss of life on both sides?

              Also, I don’t remember reading this theory, but I would guess some of those commanders also felt like something ‘magical’ might happen to save the motherland, hearkening back to Kame Kaze’s taifuns that saved Nippon from Mongol invasion on two occasions, centuries earlier.

              @davel@lemmy.ml

                • JohnnyEnzyme@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  There’s also the ‘Ask Historians’ analysis, which posits that there were at least three major ideas about how to handle a nuclear bombing entertained between the principles deciding.

                  While it’s tempting to look at the situation in retrospect and agree with the report that ‘yes obviously there wasn’t a need to bomb to elicit a surrender’ that nevertheless doesn’t mean that the majority of the deciders were fully on board with that understanding & approach, unlike Ike.

                  Without doing a deep dive, the AH approach makes about the most sense to me and seems consistent with history, in which there was a level of uncertainty and multiple players & arguments going in to the final decision.

                  Btw, that first link barely mentions the matter, and the second link is far too subjective to be of much use, far as I can tell.

    • masquenox@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      The US has never opposed fascism - Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany were colonialist rivals threatening US hegemony and influence and nothing more.

    • Omega_Haxors@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      People don’t realize that the US used to see fascism as a sort of white utopia. It was really popular up until WW2 when they hard turned on it. Kind of like what happened with communism, actually. It was seen as a revolutionary form of democracy up until the cold war, now people only know it for all the propaganda that came out of the era. (most of which was flat out lies made up on the spot by actual nazis)

      It’s a lot of the reason why the modern day liberal is so staunchly both-sides when it comes to anything geopolitics.

      • chaogomu@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Well, that and Japan was actively murdering massive amounts of people in China.

        It was a calculated strategy to stop supporting the Japanese genocide machine.

        The Rape of Nanjing made international news. That turned the average US voter against Japan, but the embargo (not a blockade) started after Japan invaded French Indochina (Vietnam) in 1940.

        The Embargo was just the US saying that no US owned oil would be sold to Japan.

    • zerfuffle@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Prior to Pearl Harbour, the US funded the Japanese as the Japanese committed countless war crimes and genocide in China.

    • TheSanSabaSongbird@lemdro.id
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Well that and the fact that there was a huge Irish-American population that was hostile towards the UK in ways that I think a lot of younger people and non-historians have really lost sight of because it’s not really a thing anymore. The idea of taking sides with the British Empire was a very tough pill for a lot of Irish-Americans, most of whom, unlike today, still had direct connections to Ireland. The famine was no longer really in living memory, but the children of the famine survivors were definitely still alive and influential and they absolutely despised the British for understandable reasons.

      History is always way more complex and nuanced than some half-baked one-liner trope on social media.

    • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Yeah, but look how it started. You need to look at the WW1, when both USA and Japan were among the victors and had the same area in their expansion view. For example Lenin predicted in 1918 that the Pacific war will eventually happen, though it ultimately started later than he thought because invasion of China occupied Japan attention.

      Interestingly enough for the same reason US-Japan war could be avoided for more time, but it’s actually the US who decided the time, note how they established the embargo on Japan in late june to 1st august 1941, in the exact moment when Japanese military was occupied, their nazi ally pour all effort into invading USSR and Japan even refused to join that war basically breaking that alliance. Said embargo was absolutely devastating for Japan, it would force them to grind their entire empire to sudden halt in half year, so they have a choice between collapse and war on USA. The only thing US was mistaken about was how competent the Japanese military actually was (not weird considering the racism in US) which led to their their initial string of victories in 1942.

      So yeah, that was the one time US was on the correct side of history but the motivation was to gobble up the Pacific for their empire, and they pushed up pretty cold bloodedly for it.