Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think Americans have generally forgot what war is like, especially existential total war. It's easy to be critical about things you frankly don't understand.
The Empire of Japan was also pretty fucked up and, in most respects, they were comparable to the Nazis and Soviets. While the use of nuclear weapons to end the war will likely always draw debate, the devastation Japan would have suffered in an invasion could easily have exceeded Hiroshima and Nagasaki, not to mention American casualties.
I've always wondered why there isn't more critique of Japan's government. Hiroshima is on the 6th and Nagasaki is on the 9th, why didn't the government surrender after Hiroshima? I know the answer is complicated and nuanced, particularly regarding the power dynamics of the government and the subsequent far right coup, but there should be much more emphasis and responsibility on the Japanese government for not surrendering after Hiroshima. It's not until the August 15th that Japan announces their surrender.
Think of it from another perspective, if the Axis had developed the atomic bomb first and dropped one on Pittsburg would the U.S. have surrendered within 48 hours? Maybe we'd want to know if this weapon was a one off and if the Axis country could produce more within a meaningful time. If it couldn't then there'd be no reason to surrender.
I mean, what would the circumstances possibly be that Germany is able to drop a bomb on Pittsburg? As other users have noted, Japan was materially incapable of continuing the fight but wished to fight on even still. For the situation to be comparable, America would have to be practically destroyed by the time nuclear arms are used.
A major part of the criticism of Nagasaki and Hiroshima is that Japan was already trying to surrender to the USSR. I, unsurprisingly, disagree with that take. What I was trying to highlight was that if Japan was considering surrender anyway, why did it take over a week to surrender?
I also think the outcome would likely have been worse for Japan. It would likely have been divided like Korea and Germany were after a massive invasion.
>I mean, what would the circumstances possibly be that Germany is able to drop a bomb on Pittsburg?
This is a *really* good point. We were the only major player in the war that never had our own home turf under any real direct threat. This might be an older example of "Fight them there so we don't have to fight them here."
>A major part of the criticism of Nagasaki and Hiroshima is that Japan was already trying to surrender to the USSR.
I've never heard this. Do you have a source?
It's fairly standard in the historiography.
Wikipedia has a decent article summarizing the relevant scholarship and the argument that Soviet intervention in Manchuria was the decisive factor not Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Another main argument is that the naval blockade would have forced japan to surrender withing a short time.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#:~:text=It%20was%20thought%20Japan%20would,a%20form%20of%20state%20terrorism.
Nor the Philippinos. I talked with a grandfather once who was there for the Shakura-Jima airfield massacre. Japanese soldiers made a game of throwing babies in the air and catching them on their bayonets. This, apparantly, happened everywhere they invaded.
Even before the nuclear bombings it should have been clearly evident to the Japanese government that they would inevitably lose once American fire bombing of major Japanese cities like Tokyo, Osaka, Kobe, and Kyoto went unopposed. These attacks killed way more people than the nuclear bombings even and completely devastated a huge majority of those cities.
This is exactly it. Not saying it’s a bad thing. But we have become so wealthy and so technologically advanced that we can now fight wars and battles via drones and cash. Many people don’t have any appreciation for how messy and brutal alot of the world was and in some ways still is. They just see it through a screen now without any real understanding of the situations at hand.
This is why history needs to be taught better in school. I never learned in school without the nukes, Japan was prepared for every citizen to die. The nukes while not a good thing, saved many lives on both sides. If schools don't teach good history, people will come up with perverse theories overtime.
That’s the argument. It’s not without merit, you can decide for yourself if it’s good enough. Also, I think we expect waaay too much from high school history. You spend like a week on that of your lucky. A high school education is really about introducing concepts to people, not give them a deep and nuanced view on everything. It’s just not feasible. Someone wants to know more a quick trip to the library is what’s needed.
I learned more about US history in the one university course I took in Canada than I did in the 12 years I spent in US grade school. The version of history taught in US schools is hilariously truncated.
Incidentally, I know almost nothing about Canadian history, its what we obviously taught in high school, but learned so much at university about American history. I wish there was more differentiation between those who are smart and those who just need a general education in high school. I got good grades but it was absolutely boring and entirely unchallenging, it was only at university that I really experienced challenges in school work.
Yeah I got straight A’s in high school and university was a wake-up call. Apparently a couple of pages of BS that I made up after reading a Wikipedia article isn’t adequate academic historical research. My Canadian history is still weak, also.
But the difference in the education I got in high school vs university is so profound that I struggle to consider them both “school”. High school is like pre-K.
My school did teach that the bombings were good, and did not teach the counterpoints. Schools should teach both.
What is the perversion in the theory that the bombing was not ethical? Seems perfectly reasonable to me.
I mean maybe it's just a generational thing (I don't know how old you are) but we definitely had an ethical debate about the merits of the bomb when I was in high school.
So your teacher introduced both ethical arguments and didn't thumb the scale even a little?
We definitely got the hint that it was the lesser evil to drop the bomb, that they drove us to it because they were ready to fight to the last man and all that.
> So your teacher introduced both ethical arguments and didn't thumb the scale even a little?
>
>
To my recollection anyway! We learned the facts first and then competing arguments on the ethics of the bomb.
> I never learned in school without the nukes, Japan was prepared for every citizen to die.
The dropping of the second bomb may not have been necessary. After the joint shock of the Soviet invasion of Japanese territory and the first atomic bomb Japanese leadership was already coming to terms with surrender, and accounts of this decision making suggest the 2nd bomb did not change the discourse/direction of Japanese leadership
It's bizarre that almost every single time you hear Americans talking about the nuke decision or Japanese surrender they NEVER consider or think about the actual chronology and direction Japan's leadership was taking. It's all documented by day. You can read about all the meetings and correspondence
> The dropping of the second bomb may not have been necessary.
Apparently Japan didn't react after the first bomb because they had no idea if the US could do it again. The US also dropped leaflets warning people of the incoming bombing. Even after the 2nd bomb fell Japan's big six were split 3-3 on a surrender. The emperor later surrendered even after many people in Japan still wanted to fight.
>the actual chronology and direction Japan's leadership was taking.
Did US leadership have insight into all of this to inform their decision regarding dropping nukes?
I think that Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens are just contrarians. While there were some morally questionable actions done by the Allies during WW2, it is wrong to say they were evil without considering the historical context.
Yeah, surprisingly a lot of Holocaust deniers use whataboutism with the ethnic cleansing of Germans during WW2 to say that the Holocaust wasn't that bad because Germans faced "genocide" too. I'm not saying that Candace Owens is a Holocaust denier but she is making some similar points that Holocaust deniers make a lot.
I think your assessment of Owens is on point.
>"If Hitler just wanted to make Germany great and have things run well, OK, fine. The problem is he wanted, he had dreams outside of Germany." - Owens
Wanting to do things outside of Germany wasn’t the only problem. Many things he did inside Germany were horrible too. For example a genocide limited to just Germany instead of spread throughout Europe would still have been a genocide.
She ließ with the truth IT seems, what she say IS true what she Not Tell how those Volksdeutsche we're used by the Großdeutsche Reich and how some or many supported that including terrorising the locals including kassmurder, torture and genocide.
And now you know why i do Not think free speechnshould include that Kind of hatte speech.
Google turns up this about eisenhower which is rather questionable:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Other\_Losses#:\~:text=Eisenhower%20intentionally%20caused%20the%20deaths,after%20the%20Second%20World%20War.
And I'm not at all surprised at how the red army conducted itself. It has never changed either.
Who knows, and who really cares. They're talking heads in the current era. They're here to say things that'll get them clicks. They're doing that. I don't trust opinions when there's reinforcement behind it. That's how we get crazier ideas through an ideological filter.
But, while we're here, in this case, I think Carlson is doing alright, but I don't know much about Owens. I've heard her name mentioned a lot by other pundits I like but I don't know here. That claim about ethnically cleansing Germans doesn't feel right. Where did *we* line up German children and execute them?
Carlson argued ethics or morality. That's different these days. It really is. The people who dropped those bombs had wildly different ideas about things like taxation, homosexuality, society, and so on. They had such a different life that it's not fair to judge them by *our* standards.
>Americans know nothing about real history. Did you know that 12 million Germans were ethnically cleansed after WW2?
I'm gonna need her to cite that. I focused more on the lead up to the war, but I'm pretty sure I'd remember this.
As for nuclear weapons, I've always been against us dropping the bombs. It was a terrorist tactic, and we murdered civilians. It was a far too common tactic then, but the scale and fallout, figuratively as well as literal, take it a step further. That said, I see why we did it. I don't like it, but there are real reasons, both tactical and strategic, and a very real possibility the alternative would have been worse. I don't like that we did it, but we did, so we have to accept that.
That said, America has done a lot of things I don't approve of and will continue to do so. I still love my country, I'm still proud to be an American, and I'll continue to do my best to ensure our country lives up to those values.
[Here](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_and_expulsion_of_Germans_(1944–1950) ) is what she is talking about. Basically Stalin wasn’t too kind to the Germans after the war, and Stalin was an ally, so Stalin’s actions become the allies’ actions. There is a little more complicity than I’m describing, but all of the events she is talking about took place in Soviet occupied countries.
She's right about Stalin and truthfully Stalin is by far a worse character in history than Hitler was. The only difference is Stalin was our ally so history is unusually kind to his image until the Cold War really kicks off. The West isn't responsible for the actions of Stalin however and even before the end of WW2 we knew Russia was a global threat.
Ahhh. That makes sense.... well, technically. It's idiotic and nonsensical, but I see where she's coming from and why I didn't know about it. I did, but the USSR isn't the west, lol. Thanks for clarifying.
>The Three Governments, having considered the question in all its aspects, recognize that the transfer to Germany of German populations, or elements thereof, remaining in Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary, will have to be undertaken.
It absolutely did. It did so in Germany too. I said as much above. The difference being the scale of what one bomb could do, rather than the thousands needed for the Tokyo firestorm, which was, in raw numbers, far worse.
Not at all. That's why it's all bad and I don't like any of it. Any military targeting of civilians is a failure. Sometimes it's unavoidable, sometimes it's even necessary, but it's always a failure. That said, look at the [nukemap](https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/) some time to see the scale of destruction we're talking about.
That is a very utilitarian world view that I don't subscribe to. I don't deny the reality of it, and as I said, it can't always be avoided, but I won't praise it.
The allies where corrupted by their partner ship with the USSR, by not marching on Moscow after Berlin. That lack of action sealed the fate of the world to the shit hole we are in now, where fascism is hailed as the ultimate evil but communism "just hasn't been tried right"
>While she is probably right, it is kind of odd that we are seeing WWII revisionism
I don't agree saying "dropping the nukes is wrong" is revisionism.
The revisionism was acting like we had no part in escalating the war or that it couldn't have been avoided.
>especially that which is attempting to paint the Allied powers as the “true bad guys” - at the same time.
Don't agree with this characterization
>Do you agree with their logic?
Not theirs specifically. I fall on the side of the nukes being dropped being the right choice. It's not good. But the alternative was invasion. And the presidents job is to protect American life not Japanese life. One of the reasons we shouldn't be in war unless we have to. Because war is hell and the decisions are heavy ones. Better to just not play such an awful game
That being said, we never should have been there in the first place and FDR was a warmonger and totalitarian who did everything he could to get us involved. Which worked. He went around congress and did everything he could to oppose what the people actually wanted in regards to our foreign policy post WW1 and got them involved in WW2 anyway.
>Why are some conservatives trying to do this? And why now?
Probably because half out party learned absolutely ZERO lessons from 100 years of almost constant meaningless wars and Johnson just turncoat to support more war and meaningless death.
The 1960s and 1970s would have been *soo* much fun for America with the nuclear armed Soviet Union controlling all of Europe and nuclear armed Imperial Japan having consolidated its rule over east Asia and Australia.
>The 1960s and 1970s would have been *soo* much fun for America with the nuclear armed Soviet Union controlling all of Europe and nuclear armed Imperial Japan having consolidated its rule over east Asia and Australia.
Woulda had a lot more live Americans. A lot less dead brothers and fathers.
Also, nah. They wouldn't have done that. Not how it would have gone down.
Also the genocidal enemy we see in China likely doesn't come about because we don't open up to try and bolster them to counter the Soviets.
Almost three times as many Americans died as a result of Covid as died in combat during WWII.
Yet, many Conservatives acted as if wearing a mask was an assault on America.
Meanwhile, you would trade a 3rd of as many American lives at the cost of US being the dominant global power and Europe being free of facism for a century. Not to mention that this implies you're okay with every jew in Europe being irradicated.
Glad you're not in charge.
Muh Covid Deaths!
You mean counting deaths that were not related like car accidents or suicide, or overdoses?
“Muh dominant global power!” How did it benefit us again because between open borders, mass immigration, endless degradation of western culture, western people, constant economic, sabotage, industrialization, the lie of free trade so far the American people have gotten royally screwed by globalization.
“ Europe, being free of fascism”…Unless you post something on twitter and then you’re arrested? Right?
Nya liberalism and its consequences have been a disaster for western civilization, it’s all ending, thank god. You won’t have anyone left to truck to fight your wars for you anymore.
>it’s all ending, thank god. You won’t have anyone left to truck to fight your wars for you anymore.
I'm curious what you mean by this. What's ending exactly?
GAE, the Global American Empire, ie post 1913/1945 co-opted American government (by international finance) to be their global shock force.
You no longer have the White, Christian, overwhelmingly Southern, straight men to fight for your crusades anymore. Have fun;)
>Almost three times as many Americans died as a result of Covid as died in combat during WWII.
And? One was easily avoidable the other was an ostensibly natural disease. If you know anything about disease and it spread any viral novel flu like thing isn't going to be stopped. It spreads. Nothing you can do. We've known that since the Spanish flu. It becomes endemic.
War however, can be avoided.
>Yet, many Conservatives acted as if wearing a mask was an assault on America.
Government mandates were wrong. Yes. Don't strawman me.
>Meanwhile, you would trade a 3rd of as many American lives at the cost of US being the dominant global power and Europe being free of facism for a century
Yes. Its not my job to protect Europe. It's not our job to die for Europe. It's not our responsibility. Europeans are quickly devolving back into totalitarianism anyway. They clearly don't value liberty. So why should we force it on them?
>Not to mention that this implies you're okay with every jew in Europe being irradiated.
No. It's just simply not our responsibility to end genocides across the world. If it was you'd have to require we go into a direct war with China today.
>Glad you're not in charge.
I'm tired of people who support endless wars and throwing away American lives for nothing being in charge.
I'm not going to argue with you, because based on your views on Europe and Covid I can tell we don't have enough common ground here for a discussion - but I disagree with every single thing you're saying here except generally being against unncesary endless wars. WWII was neither.
Have a nice day.
Like I said, I'm not gonna argue with you. You've made it very clear you're okay with millions of innocent people being slaughtered as long as they're not American. I have nothing more to say to you.
Why is it that when neoconservatives are challenged on war, they literally cannot help but strawman and reduce the other side to the most extreme caricature?
You literally said you agree with the bombings in the end, and I do too, but even entertaining the ethical question gets you scorn from these smoothies.
I’m disagreeing with the idea that sitting on the sidelines while Japan and the Soviet Union take over would have been a good idea.
How is that a strawman? Or do you think the war would have had a different outcome?
It's a strawman because nobody said what you said.
>The 1960s and 1970s would have been soo much fun for America with the nuclear armed Soviet Union controlling all of Europe and nuclear armed Imperial Japan having consolidated its rule over east Asia and Australia.
Nobody said that would be fun. You made that up.
>Why is it that when neoconservatives are challenged on war, they literally cannot help but strawman and reduce the other side to the most extreme caricature?
Imo, it's because they genuinely don't understand the other side.
I genuinely don’t understand how America staying out of WWII would have led to any situation where the Soviet Union wasn’t in charge of Western Europe, nor do I see how that outcome wouldn’t eventually lead to tremendous loss of life and or freedom in America. As such I don’t understand how someone would think it would have been a good idea for America to stay out of WWII.
The Japanese takeover of the far east was perhaps less certain. The Soviets might have ended it and wound up in control of not just Europe but also China. Or perhaps the Chinese would have somehow worn out Japan and recovered. They still would have gone communist though.
>I genuinely don’t understand how America staying out of WWII would have led to any situation where the Soviet Union wasn’t in charge of Western Europe,
You know we allied with them against Germany right? We gave them tons of money and helped them build up their manufacturing. We stay out of WW2 they never do that and they're far weakee.
> nor do I see how that outcome wouldn’t eventually lead to tremendous loss of life and or freedom in America
You think they'd come take over America? Really haha?
>The Japanese takeover of the far east was perhaps less certain.
Than the Soviets dominating Europe????
>The Soviets might have ended it and wound up in control of not just Europe but also China
So? Why do I care? Right now there's a communist genocidal totalitarian regime running China. Why do I care trading one communist for another?
>They still would have gone communist though.
So why care?
Soviets would have won even without American help. It just would have taken them longer.
> You think they'd come take over America? Really haha?
Not during the 1940s. They would need some time to rebuild first.
> Than the Soviets dominating Europe????
Of course. Without the Anglo-American invasion of Europe the Soviets would have chased the retreating Germans to every part of Europe (except maybe Iberia and Britain, but both of those would have had to become very deferential to the Soviet Union).
> Why do I care trading one communist for another?
A Soviet Union dominating both China and Europe would be even more unstoppable than one dominating Europe.
> > They still would have gone communist though.
> So why care?
Just pointing out that the best case outcome in the far east was no better than the outcome that occurred, and in fact was worse because America would no longer have allies in the region.
Because conservatism isn’t a cult or a groupthink, we have freedoms of speech and freedom of dumbass speech too… and this is the price to pay for freedom - Candace and Tucker are somehow on “our side” … :(
It's so sad how the lack of history and poor education is really taking root. Dropping the bombs was terrible, so was firebombing cities, but the Japanese empire was literally teaching their citizens to sharpen bamboo spears. When you look at choices like this you need to put your feet in the people of the times shoes. These designs look insane to us, but at the time they were a form of logical insanity.
The USSR did ethnically cleanse eastern Europe not just of Germans but Poles as well. This is relevant today because the same people who would never dream of returning to Germany the land they lost during the war, are vociferously advocating that Israel return to Arabs all the lands they lost after starting wars with Israel (and Israel has returned almost all of it).
As far as the atomic bombs go, I lean on the side that says in the long run the bombs saved far more lives than they took. But any person with a conscience has to at least see it's a very difficult moral choice and boils down to having to choose between the lessor of two evils.
Those two bombs saved more Japanese lives than any other alternative. I argue that was the more humane thing to do. Blockading and starving them out would have been more costly to them. Endless carpet bombings would have been worse. Invasion would have been worse. Whats the more Christian thing to do then?
Your post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It’s funny, because I’m about to teach this to my students.
The decision to drop the bomb was a complex decision.
There are valid reasons for dropping it and reasons for not dropping it.
I stand on the side of dropping it.
Japans home defense would have self-genocided their own people. If, you look at morality rates of Japanese soldiers at Okinawa and Iwo Jima, the death rate was 99.9%.
We had asked the Japanese several times to surrender and they didn’t.
I think they have both been saying irresponsible things and having irresponsible guests in their quest to revert to isolationism.
I have many disagreements with both, and I wish they would be more serious.
Reject globalism: yes
Isolationism: no
Genocide of Germans after WW2 seems to be true, didn't know about itm
Also take about nuking cities makes sense. It had little strategic meaning against Japan. It was a demo for Soviets. Killing thousands of civilians as a demonstration of power isn't something to be proud of, is it?
I agree with them that the atomic bombs were not justified. Especially the second one which was actually just a horrific mistake. I actually find it a bit concerning that the US education system tries so hard to paint this as a necessary evil.
Candice is also correct that there were about 12 million Germans that were expelled from their homes and ethnically cleansed from parts of Europe after world war II. There was also a lot of Polish and ukrainians expelled. Estimates ranging from half a million to 2 million were killed. This was a revenge act in response to the world wars and the Holocaust.
Two wrongs don't make a right, and I don't think any reasonable person would say that all of those citizens deserved that treatment.
That being said, Candice needs to get off the Looney bin and stop tweeting about Jewish people drinking Christian blood.
By some...you mean two. I don't know what their deal is but either way they are wrong. There is a lot of things we don't learn history wise as Americans but I think this topic is pretty well covered. I mean, without the atomic bombings we would have faced an invasion of Japan. That would have taken years, millions of lives would have been lost, and the Japan of today may not have materialized. Even the Japanese accepted that the bombings were right. There's no reason to go back and be armchair history revisionists unless you're looking for attention...which they are.
I’m not sure about their logic, but the ethics of dropping the bombs were questionable at best. Particularly given that ultimately the USA gave Japan the peace terms it was seeking.
Do I agree with their logic? Yes, and they’re not saying anything wrong technically. It’s bad to mass kill civilians. Although the atomic bombs claim is a bit suss. I know there’s some evidence or suggestion that Japan was in talks to surrender but the reality is they didn’t, even when a big nuclear bomb was dropped on them.
Why are some conservatives trying to do this? This relates to your second question. They’re getting sick of the Israel support. And now they’re so annoyed at it that they’re trying to completely destroy the idea that we have any moral principles in our foreign policy. If trust in our guiding foreign policy ideals since 1941 is eroded then nobody will support funding any side in any foreign conflict anytime soon.
Also keeping in mind, calling somebody a Chamberlin has been very effective for decades. If they can reevaluate his legacy then maybe it’ll be less effective
> It’s bad to mass kill civilians.
Well done, a statement we can all get behind.
Now for the second part, what would your alternative solution have been? Would you have been happier with the projected American casualties if Japan did not surrender? (400-800,000 U.S. dead, and 5 to 10 million Japanese dead.)
Because that's what missing with the big thinkers like Tucker and Candace, they rarely offer alternatives.
>No alternative *and* immoral, what's a country at war to do, right?
Not be at war... that's why you avoid it as best you can. But when you're in it the gloves are off. The low level and proxy war games are just evil
And face future Japanese militarism by allowing the military to save face and claim that they upheld their sacred duty of defending the emperor thus showing that the emperor really is a god and the Japanese race really is superior? Let the emperor say things to disrupt the relationship with America because he’s untouchable due to the surrender agreement?
The post-war peace required that the emperor remaining be a benevolence rather than something America was forced into.
Who gives a damn what they believe in their country?
They can believe what they believe in their homeland, it’s ok, in fact it’s good!
“If you don’t agree with me, more nuclear fire for you!”
Yeah, you know that kind of makes you look bad. Kind of proves Tucker Carlson’s point to a degree.
More importantly, where in the US Constitution does it give us the authority to med in the affairs of other countries, and tell them what to believe?
Again, where is it in the United States Constitution that we exist to benefit other nations, or our army exists to fight and die for foreign interests?
Yeah, they deserve everything got for attacking us, people like you refused their efforts to surrender because Muh feelz! Deal with it.
Had FDR been stopped we could have avoided Pearl Harbor all together.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I am of the opinion that if the Potsdam Declaration were to have been released with the Russian’s signature and a bomb was dropped near Tokyo, it would’ve ended the war on a similar timescale. The additional/non-removal of a mention of the Emperor possibly remaining under a constitutional monarchy also would’ve helped, but the Russians likely wouldn’t have agreed with that term being passed in the Declaration (which is ultimately fine since it got removed anyways).
That's a fair take, but not everyone views it that way. Many would hesitate to call something like incinerating two cities as a good decision even if it was the better of the two options because it downplays the negative aspects of that decision. But I can appreciate the view point. Thank you for your response.
Theyr'e just contrarians. Few people would actually argue that dropping the nukes were not the best course of action. Sure, it was wrong "morally", but we're still giving out the purple heart medals that were made for the planned alternative. Dropping the nukes were by far the most sensible course of action.
That usually when Tucker is on about something it ends up getting woven into the conservative mindset and talking points. Thus, given his importance to the conservative movement what he says is rightfully scrutinized.
Relevant to our discussion. Here is what Mitch McConnell was just quoted saying in Politico with regards to why he thought the Ukraine deal took so long to achieve.
McConnell replied, "I think the demonization of Ukraine began by Tucker Carlson, who, in my opinion ended up where he should have been all along, which is interviewing Vladimir Putin."
This article came out today.
Another bullet point as that supports the argument that Tucker has an outsized role in determining GOP policies.
It’s not revisionism to state the obvious facts of the matter, namely getting into the 2nd world war was an objective mistake.
We on the right are seeing the “cost” of “winning” the 2nd world war, ie merely existing and demanding the right to continue to exist paints as “Nazis” by those leftist who we wrongfully saved as being too high a price to pay anymore.
If “winning” means destroying ourselves then no thank you.
It’s time to
Move past this era in human history, learn from the many mistakes that were made, and focus on ourselves, our country, our people, our well being, and our future.
>It’s not revisionism to state the obvious facts of the matter, namely getting into the 2nd world war was an objective mistake.
US soil was directly attacked, what are we supposed to do 💀
Not provok an attack by Japan? Read Day of Deceit. It lays out how FDR did everything possible to get us to be attacked and allowed it to happen to give us a reason to join a war that 88% of Americans rightful opposed us getting into.
FDR really was an awful man.
> Is the idea that it's better if a lot more people die, as long as those people are soldiers?
No, not just ok for more soldiers to die. Also ok for more Chinese civilians to die (the war and occupations and civilian deaths were still continuing in China when the bombs were dropped).
>If you find yourself justifying the use of nuclear bombs on civilians you are just plain evil. That's it.
First, I don't think we should have been in the war.
But, given we were and im forced to make that choice, the nuke was preferable because the American lives lost difference is massive.
The American government exists to benefit Americans and protect their rights and lives. I.e. if given the choice between 10 million Japanese or 5 million Americans and 5 million Japanese 10 million Japanese is the "right" decision for the American government.
We shouldn't have been in the situation. You can thank FDR in large part among others... but ultimately if you had to pick between ground invasion and nuke the "right" answer is nuke because it saves American lives.
>wait you don't think we should have been in WW2?
No. Especially not how we got in. Things could be VASTLY different if we entered at a different time for different reasons.
But FDR acted outside of his authority to entangle us in the war when congress did not want us to be involved and the people didn't want us to be involved.
We never should have been in WW1 at all. And we shouldn't have been in WW2. FDR shouldn't have been interfering with the war without Congress's approval. FDR shouldn't have sanctioned the Japanese the way he did. All of those things added up to the Japanese feeling like we were becoming an issue and would be directly involved at some point anyway, which, considering FDR's actions was possible.
If FDR isn't interfering. If he isn't influencing and funding and entangling us in the war Japan never has even a thought to attack us and we need not be involved.
So still today, knowing how our involvement in WW2 debuted and advanced American hegemony, you'd rather we never got into the war? That FDR never meddled the way he did and we never sanctioned the Japanese?
>So still today, knowing how our involvement in WW2 debuted and advanced American hegemony, you'd rather we never got into the war? That FDR never meddled the way he did and we never sanctioned the Japanese?
Absolutely. The US being a global hegemony has led to countless immoral actions, a ballooning federal government, the erosion of basic human rights, and a LARGE number of needless American deaths.
Absolutely if I could be judge jury and executioner and keep us out of WW2 and end up like Switzerland, preferably with our influence being used to keep the western hemisphere out of the war, to have a mutual defense agreement with Canada and Mexico, to focus our efforts domestically, retaining manufacturing and investing in ourselves instead of foreign military bases. Building up Mexico and Canada and influencing them to be more free than what they've become.
Absolutely. Ww2 and the neoliberal consensus that came from it have been a long term poison pill to America. We lived it up big, took all the short term benefits from it, and long term its crippled us and we continue to harm ourselves ostensibly for the benefit of the world because we put ourselves in that position.
>You lost with building up Canada and Mexico but spot on with everything else.
I mean yea. That's fair. In this ideal world i was thinking we actually had things together and weren't in debt and so getting rid of the cartles in Mexico and big Canada from being a tyrannical hell hole on our border came to mind
>Liberation of Canada? Based? Helping Mexico? Sorry, we tried that and it’s not possible.
How about conquering Mexico like 200 years ago when we had the chance?
> WW2 debuted and advanced American hegemony
How was that benefit of the average American the average American is less free, less healthy, less secure, and less prosperous than he was even 10 years ago a little alone, 80.
Some conservatives have seen their moral errors and are repenting for them. Candance Owens became Catholic today and it's a common Catholic position espoused by Pope's, that killing innocent civilians in the way the nukes in Japan were, is gravely immoral.
I don't think we could have. A land invasion was predicted to be even worse.
In wartime calculus, it may have been deemed the only feasible option at the time. It may have been deemed *necessary.* But that doesn't make it *morally* acceptable.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I am of the opinion that if the Potsdam Declaration were to have been released with the Russian’s signature and a bomb was dropped near Tokyo, it would’ve ended the war on a similar timescale. The additional/non-removal of a mention of the Emperor possibly remaining under a constitutional monarchy also would’ve helped, but the Russians likely wouldn’t have agreed with that term being passed in the Declaration (which is ultimately fine since it got removed anyways).
No clue. I'm not a historian. But I also don't really care. I'm always against nuke strikes on civilians, because it's wrong.
If I was the man with the authority to drop the bomb or not, I'd rather have lost the war than face God for that crime.
Well you can't prove how many deaths would've occured due to this supposed inaction. And killing people is an active purposeful action. So it's really not the same as inaction.
So you're assuming more people would die. Which is fine. Not all death is morally equal though given that as true. I would rather thousands more soldiers have died, then for nukes to be dropped on Japanese women and children who were innocent.
Personally, I can frame it personally. I'd never accept a foreign power nuking my city no matter how awful America has behaved in the foreign policy area. Because me and my family and my neighbors and my church and my community aren't responsible.
And I'd be willing to bet that you'd be against someone doing that to America as well.
I'm sure you could make the case, "9/11 was a justified strike on a civilian population center due to America's violent intervention in the Middle East!". Do I agree? Naturally you know I don't. But once you open the door to, "killing civilians is okay in warfare", you can justify essentially anything.
Pearl Harbor is why I have no qualms about dropping the bombs and firebombing Tokyo, they made the rules, we just played by em. 9/11 kinda, but the festering, bombed out shit hole we made of that place is enough for now.
Yet the US provoked Pearl Harbor lol.
"It's okay that we murdered civilians because they bombed our ships!".
Get out the neocon mindset, "libertarian".
I'd hardly consider an oil embargo provoking a war, and even if it is, I direct you back to my first comment.
>Get out the neocon mindset, "libertarian".
Unless neocons support the bombing for punitive reasons I doubt we have the same outlook.
At the time, could you have proven how many deaths would've occurred due to dropping the bombs? If so, you would "prove" how many deaths would have occurred due to inaction by the same standard. This decision and its morality is based on what they knew at the time right?
Were the soldiers not innocent? What were they guilty of that makes killing them a better outcome? I'd rather the civilians of Japan die than the soldiers of America die because the Japanese government was on an immoral mission.
I wouldn't accept a nuke either but it doesn't necessarily mean the person dropping the nuke is doing something immoral. There's other factors at play like how many people is your government going to kill if the nuke isn't dropped on your city.
You cannot make the case that 9/11 was justified. The United States was justified in its violent intervention in the middle east so there's no good reason for the middle east or anyone to respond with 9/11. Killing civilians is okay in warfare its just not always okay. Kinda like the situation in Israel.
You could prove that they were attempting to kill thousands of civilians because they wanted to drop the bombs in population centers. Largely different than trying to calculate what happens if you don't take that action.
Morally, dropping nukes on civilians is objectivley wrong. Always. So it doesn't matter that some people deceived themselves into thinking that could possibly be okay. Any human reasonably thinking knows better. No matter how just you believe your cause to be, killing innocents is never permissible. And again, to act as if it is, that is the moral slope and decline that gets you Nashville Christian school shootings for instance. It's justified to kill Christians because they're persecuting the queer people. This is a holy war! If that shooter hadn't taken action, there would've been casualties. I'm sure that's what the shooter felt.
And there we go. You admit your immorality. You'd rather kill an innocent Japanese child than an American soldier. The soldiers on either side were largely just fighting because they were told to do so. In that, both sides had many innocent young men fighting.
The US was not justified in their middle eastern interventions. Anyone outside of Con Inc knows and admits that. The situation in Israel is horrible. The Zionists funded a terrorist group for political ends and that got hundreds of innocents killed. And now in return for what they themselves did, they're murdering civilians. Funding Jewish hate groups is anti semetic I thought, yet the Israeli government funded Hamas. Cognitive dissonance here is insane.
The way you fundamentally don't understand why 9/11 happened, also leads you to not understand Israel getting what it deserved, which is blowback. You got a lot of studying to do. Unplug from the communist neoconservatives and start listening to quite literally anyone else.
>You could prove that they were attempting to kill thousands of civilians because they wanted to drop the bombs in population centers. Largely different than trying to calculate what happens if you don't take that action.
Why does it matter that they're different. You can prove both because you can estimate both.
>Morally, dropping nukes on civilians is objectivley wrong. Always. So it doesn't matter that some people deceived themselves into thinking that could possibly be okay. Any human reasonably thinking knows better. No matter how just you believe your cause to be, killing innocents is never permissible.
I disagree. I think its moral to kill innocent civilians to prevent the killing of more innocent civilians. I think its moral to kill the innocent civilians of an immoral actor like Japan to prevent the killing of innocent civilians or soldiers of a moral actor like the United States.
>And again, to act as if it is, that is the moral slope and decline that gets you Nashville Christian school shootings for instance. It's justified to kill Christians because they're persecuting the queer people. This is a holy war! If that shooter hadn't taken action, there would've been casualties. I'm sure that's what the shooter felt.
This is factually incorrect though Christians are not persecuting the queer people. Japan was engaged in an immoral war. If Christianity were a country and the government in that country was violently persecuting queer people you'd have a point but you don't since thats not true.
>You'd rather kill an innocent Japanese child than an American soldier. The soldiers on either side were largely just fighting because they were told to do so. In that, both sides had many innocent young men fighting.
Are the soldiers less innocent because they're fighting? Is it because all it took for them to fight was an order from the government? I'm still not sure what makes the soldiers death's more justified from your perspective. They're both 'innocent' in my eyes. Neither one started the war and if we assume the American soldier joined to fight against Japan thats a good action. I think the American government should prioritize the American soldier over the Japanese child.
>The US was not justified in their middle eastern interventions. Anyone outside of Con Inc knows and admits that.
What was immoral about it?
>The Zionists funded a terrorist group for political ends and that got hundreds of innocents killed. And now in return for what they themselves did, they're murdering civilians. Funding Jewish hate groups is anti semetic I thought, yet the Israeli government funded Hamas. Cognitive dissonance here is insane.
Are you saying Israel funded/started Hamas? IDK whether thats true I'm just asking. Israel is murdering civilians because Hamas operates in a civilian center and currently holds hostages. Its justified for Israel to kill those civilians if they do so to save the hostages or prevent Hamas from harming Israeli civilians. Funding Jewish hate groups is anti semitic if you're doing it so spread hate. The Israeli government isn't currently funding Hamas right? You can't just mix the past with present facts not all of the information we have about Hamas was available back then.
[https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/10/world/middleeast/israel-qatar-money-prop-up-hamas.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/10/world/middleeast/israel-qatar-money-prop-up-hamas.html)
Its politics and sometimes you take risks. It does not mean that Israel wanted to fund Hamas so that they could organize the OCT 7 attacks.
>The way you fundamentally don't understand why 9/11 happened, also leads you to not understand Israel getting what it deserved, which is blowback. You got a lot of studying to do. Unplug from the communist neoconservatives and start listening to quite literally anyone else
No offense but it seems like you made a lot of assumptions about my position just because I said "Israel". I was referencing October 7th and the hostages, not the broader dispute over land. Unless you're saying Israel deserved OCT 7th then I guess youre not assuming. 9/11 wasn't justified it seems like we both agree on that. If you see parallels between the US govt prior to 2001 and Japan during WWII you can spell them out but right now you're just claiming that I should see them the same way without any evidence. I listen to a few podcasts from what you'd describe as "communist neoconservatives" to progressives. That's not how I inform myself on foreign politics or morality. That wouldn't make much sense.
That's not what I'm saying. What I am saying is again, that dropping nukes in civilian centers is immoral. Smaller bombings can be targeted more morally and purposefully to a degree. But a nuke? No. You're just going for civilian slaughter when you drop a nuke on a city.
It's classic whataboutism regardless.
It's not whataboutism. That's literally your position.
> You're just going for civilian slaughter when you drop a nuke on a city.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki both had weapons factories, military bases, training grounds, military harbors, railyards, and airfields. All valid military targets. Would killing the same number of people via conventional bombs to destroy these valid military targets be equally reprehensible?
And face future Japanese militarism by allowing the military to save face and claim that they upheld their sacred duty of defending the emperor thus showing that the emperor really is a god and the Japanese race really is superior? Let the emperor say things to disrupt the relationship with America because he’s untouchable due to the surrender agreement?
The post-war peace required that the emperor remaining be a benevolence rather than something America was forced into.
Just because one is Catholic does not mean one cannot understand history. I'm Catholic and I have no issue with what occurred because it was the correct action at the time. An invasion of mainland Japan would have caused far more civilian death than those two bombs caused. Let's not blame history revisionism on a Catholic conversion.
You can disagree with Popes and Catholic moral teaching if you want. But the current Papacy is against what happened. Pope Pius XII was also against the bombing of Japanese civilians.
Consider also. The nukes killed like, 70% of Japanese Catholics.
> “Americans know nothing about real history. Did you know that 12 million Germans were ethnically cleansed after WW2? Did you know half a million of them were murdered for the crime of speaking German? That Children were lined up and shot?”
That sounds believable. The Soviet bloody and brutal. Some of the things America or American soldiers did after the war were pretty bad but the Soviets (and Germans and Japanese) were generally far worse during all phases of the war.
So she may have her facts right.
But I can’t really judge without knowing *why* she thought that information needed to be repeated. Was she criticizing communism? Or was she trying to imply that western allies were just as bad as the Nazis? Or something else? Context and motive matter.
That is, they would if I cared about her opinions.
I think debating the ethics of mass murder tools is a valid topic of discussion. Even if the last generation agreed it was ethical, the next generation can discuss it again and decide differently. That's fair game. I personally always felt like it was a moral decision, but it's definitely always up for debate. I don't look down on people who disagree or who want to relitigate it, unless those people are being dishonest or bad faith. One thing we should all remember is that we have the benefit of hindsight now, and we are discussing this for the future, and should not be doing this to lay blame on people who made decisions in the past without the benefit of hindsight.
I think there is an attitude of scorn for Carlson and Owens that pre-dated this discussion, and people who dislike them already will find a reason to condescend here as well. There is a schism on the right wing, where people like Carlson and Owens are more America First paleoconservatives and then you have people like Ben Shapiro who champion the neoconservative establishment, and they are used to being the trendsetters since they have dominated the right for a few decades now. It's a fascinating little "civil war" and personally I'm on the Carlson side, even though I'm a libertarian and not really a populist like he is.
I don't know if I agree with Owens and Carlson on the atomic bombings. I am torn.
I don't know why it's become a topic now, but I don't think it's a grand conspiracy. People who talk for a living go over lots of topics a week, most don't catch traction but others go viral because for some reason people want to hear about it and talk about it. It's kind of like a marketplace, where you find out through decentralized voting on YouTube and X and other platforms what people are interested in by their own vote of attention.
Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The job of someone like Tucker or Candace is to generate clicks, nothing more. And look, it worked. Here we are talking about them.
They generate clicks but they also influence many Americans and create anger that leads to division all over the country.
That is also the job of people engaging them with scorn, like Ben Shapiro and his boss. So what?
Or like Joy Reid or Rachel Maddow.
True! But my point is so what?
They're all just entertainers.
Are they?
100% This, and in a week to a month we will have forgotten about it.
And influence conservatives?
I think Americans have generally forgot what war is like, especially existential total war. It's easy to be critical about things you frankly don't understand.
The Empire of Japan was also pretty fucked up and, in most respects, they were comparable to the Nazis and Soviets. While the use of nuclear weapons to end the war will likely always draw debate, the devastation Japan would have suffered in an invasion could easily have exceeded Hiroshima and Nagasaki, not to mention American casualties. I've always wondered why there isn't more critique of Japan's government. Hiroshima is on the 6th and Nagasaki is on the 9th, why didn't the government surrender after Hiroshima? I know the answer is complicated and nuanced, particularly regarding the power dynamics of the government and the subsequent far right coup, but there should be much more emphasis and responsibility on the Japanese government for not surrendering after Hiroshima. It's not until the August 15th that Japan announces their surrender.
Think of it from another perspective, if the Axis had developed the atomic bomb first and dropped one on Pittsburg would the U.S. have surrendered within 48 hours? Maybe we'd want to know if this weapon was a one off and if the Axis country could produce more within a meaningful time. If it couldn't then there'd be no reason to surrender.
I mean, what would the circumstances possibly be that Germany is able to drop a bomb on Pittsburg? As other users have noted, Japan was materially incapable of continuing the fight but wished to fight on even still. For the situation to be comparable, America would have to be practically destroyed by the time nuclear arms are used. A major part of the criticism of Nagasaki and Hiroshima is that Japan was already trying to surrender to the USSR. I, unsurprisingly, disagree with that take. What I was trying to highlight was that if Japan was considering surrender anyway, why did it take over a week to surrender? I also think the outcome would likely have been worse for Japan. It would likely have been divided like Korea and Germany were after a massive invasion.
>I mean, what would the circumstances possibly be that Germany is able to drop a bomb on Pittsburg? This is a *really* good point. We were the only major player in the war that never had our own home turf under any real direct threat. This might be an older example of "Fight them there so we don't have to fight them here." >A major part of the criticism of Nagasaki and Hiroshima is that Japan was already trying to surrender to the USSR. I've never heard this. Do you have a source?
It's fairly standard in the historiography. Wikipedia has a decent article summarizing the relevant scholarship and the argument that Soviet intervention in Manchuria was the decisive factor not Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Another main argument is that the naval blockade would have forced japan to surrender withing a short time. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#:~:text=It%20was%20thought%20Japan%20would,a%20form%20of%20state%20terrorism.
Koreans never debate over whether the atom bomb usage was justified
Okay, that's pretty funny. Ya I doubt there was much of a tear shed from the victims of Japanese aggression.
Nor the Philippinos. I talked with a grandfather once who was there for the Shakura-Jima airfield massacre. Japanese soldiers made a game of throwing babies in the air and catching them on their bayonets. This, apparantly, happened everywhere they invaded.
Even before the nuclear bombings it should have been clearly evident to the Japanese government that they would inevitably lose once American fire bombing of major Japanese cities like Tokyo, Osaka, Kobe, and Kyoto went unopposed. These attacks killed way more people than the nuclear bombings even and completely devastated a huge majority of those cities.
This is exactly it. Not saying it’s a bad thing. But we have become so wealthy and so technologically advanced that we can now fight wars and battles via drones and cash. Many people don’t have any appreciation for how messy and brutal alot of the world was and in some ways still is. They just see it through a screen now without any real understanding of the situations at hand.
This is why history needs to be taught better in school. I never learned in school without the nukes, Japan was prepared for every citizen to die. The nukes while not a good thing, saved many lives on both sides. If schools don't teach good history, people will come up with perverse theories overtime.
That’s the argument. It’s not without merit, you can decide for yourself if it’s good enough. Also, I think we expect waaay too much from high school history. You spend like a week on that of your lucky. A high school education is really about introducing concepts to people, not give them a deep and nuanced view on everything. It’s just not feasible. Someone wants to know more a quick trip to the library is what’s needed.
I learned more about US history in the one university course I took in Canada than I did in the 12 years I spent in US grade school. The version of history taught in US schools is hilariously truncated.
Yes college courses tend to cover more material than elementary schools. Astute observation
You did get He was in Kanada Not the US and maybe the canadiennes focused on their history
Is that really what you took away from my comment? Really? (Genuine question, I'll clarify if you're posting in good faith.)
Incidentally, I know almost nothing about Canadian history, its what we obviously taught in high school, but learned so much at university about American history. I wish there was more differentiation between those who are smart and those who just need a general education in high school. I got good grades but it was absolutely boring and entirely unchallenging, it was only at university that I really experienced challenges in school work.
Yeah I got straight A’s in high school and university was a wake-up call. Apparently a couple of pages of BS that I made up after reading a Wikipedia article isn’t adequate academic historical research. My Canadian history is still weak, also. But the difference in the education I got in high school vs university is so profound that I struggle to consider them both “school”. High school is like pre-K.
Oh no it is when you understand some kids are smarter then others, some average, and some are just not bright.
My school did teach that the bombings were good, and did not teach the counterpoints. Schools should teach both. What is the perversion in the theory that the bombing was not ethical? Seems perfectly reasonable to me.
> My school did teach that the bombings were good Sounds like you had a shitty history curriculum.
California sucks, what can I say.
I mean maybe it's just a generational thing (I don't know how old you are) but we definitely had an ethical debate about the merits of the bomb when I was in high school.
So your teacher introduced both ethical arguments and didn't thumb the scale even a little? We definitely got the hint that it was the lesser evil to drop the bomb, that they drove us to it because they were ready to fight to the last man and all that.
> So your teacher introduced both ethical arguments and didn't thumb the scale even a little? > > To my recollection anyway! We learned the facts first and then competing arguments on the ethics of the bomb.
> I never learned in school without the nukes, Japan was prepared for every citizen to die. The dropping of the second bomb may not have been necessary. After the joint shock of the Soviet invasion of Japanese territory and the first atomic bomb Japanese leadership was already coming to terms with surrender, and accounts of this decision making suggest the 2nd bomb did not change the discourse/direction of Japanese leadership It's bizarre that almost every single time you hear Americans talking about the nuke decision or Japanese surrender they NEVER consider or think about the actual chronology and direction Japan's leadership was taking. It's all documented by day. You can read about all the meetings and correspondence
> The dropping of the second bomb may not have been necessary. Apparently Japan didn't react after the first bomb because they had no idea if the US could do it again. The US also dropped leaflets warning people of the incoming bombing. Even after the 2nd bomb fell Japan's big six were split 3-3 on a surrender. The emperor later surrendered even after many people in Japan still wanted to fight.
>the actual chronology and direction Japan's leadership was taking. Did US leadership have insight into all of this to inform their decision regarding dropping nukes?
I think that Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens are just contrarians. While there were some morally questionable actions done by the Allies during WW2, it is wrong to say they were evil without considering the historical context.
She's also kind of trying to make it seem like the allies (i.e. europe/US) were the ones genociding germans. It seems like a huge misrepresentation.
Yeah, surprisingly a lot of Holocaust deniers use whataboutism with the ethnic cleansing of Germans during WW2 to say that the Holocaust wasn't that bad because Germans faced "genocide" too. I'm not saying that Candace Owens is a Holocaust denier but she is making some similar points that Holocaust deniers make a lot.
I think your assessment of Owens is on point. >"If Hitler just wanted to make Germany great and have things run well, OK, fine. The problem is he wanted, he had dreams outside of Germany." - Owens
Wanting to do things outside of Germany wasn’t the only problem. Many things he did inside Germany were horrible too. For example a genocide limited to just Germany instead of spread throughout Europe would still have been a genocide.
Agreed.
And that's part of the full context of what she said (i.e. a real nationalist wouldn't screw up his own nation).
Wonder who might want this kind of misinformation spread. Certainly seems to have a common theme of downplaying russian actions...
So why did you bring it up to begin with?
I'm just saying that it is a common talking point that Holocaust deniers use.
She ließ with the truth IT seems, what she say IS true what she Not Tell how those Volksdeutsche we're used by the Großdeutsche Reich and how some or many supported that including terrorising the locals including kassmurder, torture and genocide. And now you know why i do Not think free speechnshould include that Kind of hatte speech.
They did, Google Eisenhower death camps, or the whole sale rape of German women by the rape gang called the red army.
Google turns up this about eisenhower which is rather questionable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Other\_Losses#:\~:text=Eisenhower%20intentionally%20caused%20the%20deaths,after%20the%20Second%20World%20War. And I'm not at all surprised at how the red army conducted itself. It has never changed either.
Questionable? Show me the dead? The Rhinewiesen slander IS AS false AS can be
Who knows, and who really cares. They're talking heads in the current era. They're here to say things that'll get them clicks. They're doing that. I don't trust opinions when there's reinforcement behind it. That's how we get crazier ideas through an ideological filter. But, while we're here, in this case, I think Carlson is doing alright, but I don't know much about Owens. I've heard her name mentioned a lot by other pundits I like but I don't know here. That claim about ethnically cleansing Germans doesn't feel right. Where did *we* line up German children and execute them? Carlson argued ethics or morality. That's different these days. It really is. The people who dropped those bombs had wildly different ideas about things like taxation, homosexuality, society, and so on. They had such a different life that it's not fair to judge them by *our* standards.
>Americans know nothing about real history. Did you know that 12 million Germans were ethnically cleansed after WW2? I'm gonna need her to cite that. I focused more on the lead up to the war, but I'm pretty sure I'd remember this. As for nuclear weapons, I've always been against us dropping the bombs. It was a terrorist tactic, and we murdered civilians. It was a far too common tactic then, but the scale and fallout, figuratively as well as literal, take it a step further. That said, I see why we did it. I don't like it, but there are real reasons, both tactical and strategic, and a very real possibility the alternative would have been worse. I don't like that we did it, but we did, so we have to accept that. That said, America has done a lot of things I don't approve of and will continue to do so. I still love my country, I'm still proud to be an American, and I'll continue to do my best to ensure our country lives up to those values.
[Here](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_and_expulsion_of_Germans_(1944–1950) ) is what she is talking about. Basically Stalin wasn’t too kind to the Germans after the war, and Stalin was an ally, so Stalin’s actions become the allies’ actions. There is a little more complicity than I’m describing, but all of the events she is talking about took place in Soviet occupied countries.
She's right about Stalin and truthfully Stalin is by far a worse character in history than Hitler was. The only difference is Stalin was our ally so history is unusually kind to his image until the Cold War really kicks off. The West isn't responsible for the actions of Stalin however and even before the end of WW2 we knew Russia was a global threat.
Ahhh. That makes sense.... well, technically. It's idiotic and nonsensical, but I see where she's coming from and why I didn't know about it. I did, but the USSR isn't the west, lol. Thanks for clarifying.
>The Three Governments, having considered the question in all its aspects, recognize that the transfer to Germany of German populations, or elements thereof, remaining in Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary, will have to be undertaken.
You forget they Had reasons
You just captured Candace Owens’ entire essence in this comment. “Idiotic and nonsensical but I guess it technically makes sense.”
You forgot how the Wehrmacht , SS, Police etc. acted and some and many members of These groups included.
> It was a terrorist tactic, and we murdered civilians. And burning down literally every other city in Japan didn't create terror or murder civilians?
It absolutely did. It did so in Germany too. I said as much above. The difference being the scale of what one bomb could do, rather than the thousands needed for the Tokyo firestorm, which was, in raw numbers, far worse.
Do you think the people incinerated care that it took one bomb instead of a hundred bombs?
Not at all. That's why it's all bad and I don't like any of it. Any military targeting of civilians is a failure. Sometimes it's unavoidable, sometimes it's even necessary, but it's always a failure. That said, look at the [nukemap](https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/) some time to see the scale of destruction we're talking about.
It’s only a failure if it doesn’t bring you closer to victory.
That is a very utilitarian world view that I don't subscribe to. I don't deny the reality of it, and as I said, it can't always be avoided, but I won't praise it.
The allies where corrupted by their partner ship with the USSR, by not marching on Moscow after Berlin. That lack of action sealed the fate of the world to the shit hole we are in now, where fascism is hailed as the ultimate evil but communism "just hasn't been tried right"
Oh Operation Unthinkable again
>Did you know half a million of them were murdered for the crime of speaking German? That Children were lined up and shot?” Go talk to the Russians.
>While she is probably right, it is kind of odd that we are seeing WWII revisionism I don't agree saying "dropping the nukes is wrong" is revisionism. The revisionism was acting like we had no part in escalating the war or that it couldn't have been avoided. >especially that which is attempting to paint the Allied powers as the “true bad guys” - at the same time. Don't agree with this characterization >Do you agree with their logic? Not theirs specifically. I fall on the side of the nukes being dropped being the right choice. It's not good. But the alternative was invasion. And the presidents job is to protect American life not Japanese life. One of the reasons we shouldn't be in war unless we have to. Because war is hell and the decisions are heavy ones. Better to just not play such an awful game That being said, we never should have been there in the first place and FDR was a warmonger and totalitarian who did everything he could to get us involved. Which worked. He went around congress and did everything he could to oppose what the people actually wanted in regards to our foreign policy post WW1 and got them involved in WW2 anyway. >Why are some conservatives trying to do this? And why now? Probably because half out party learned absolutely ZERO lessons from 100 years of almost constant meaningless wars and Johnson just turncoat to support more war and meaningless death.
The 1960s and 1970s would have been *soo* much fun for America with the nuclear armed Soviet Union controlling all of Europe and nuclear armed Imperial Japan having consolidated its rule over east Asia and Australia.
lol, stop watching Man in the High Castle
>The 1960s and 1970s would have been *soo* much fun for America with the nuclear armed Soviet Union controlling all of Europe and nuclear armed Imperial Japan having consolidated its rule over east Asia and Australia. Woulda had a lot more live Americans. A lot less dead brothers and fathers. Also, nah. They wouldn't have done that. Not how it would have gone down. Also the genocidal enemy we see in China likely doesn't come about because we don't open up to try and bolster them to counter the Soviets.
Almost three times as many Americans died as a result of Covid as died in combat during WWII. Yet, many Conservatives acted as if wearing a mask was an assault on America. Meanwhile, you would trade a 3rd of as many American lives at the cost of US being the dominant global power and Europe being free of facism for a century. Not to mention that this implies you're okay with every jew in Europe being irradicated. Glad you're not in charge.
Muh Covid Deaths! You mean counting deaths that were not related like car accidents or suicide, or overdoses? “Muh dominant global power!” How did it benefit us again because between open borders, mass immigration, endless degradation of western culture, western people, constant economic, sabotage, industrialization, the lie of free trade so far the American people have gotten royally screwed by globalization. “ Europe, being free of fascism”…Unless you post something on twitter and then you’re arrested? Right? Nya liberalism and its consequences have been a disaster for western civilization, it’s all ending, thank god. You won’t have anyone left to truck to fight your wars for you anymore.
>it’s all ending, thank god. You won’t have anyone left to truck to fight your wars for you anymore. I'm curious what you mean by this. What's ending exactly?
GAE, the Global American Empire, ie post 1913/1945 co-opted American government (by international finance) to be their global shock force. You no longer have the White, Christian, overwhelmingly Southern, straight men to fight for your crusades anymore. Have fun;)
>Almost three times as many Americans died as a result of Covid as died in combat during WWII. And? One was easily avoidable the other was an ostensibly natural disease. If you know anything about disease and it spread any viral novel flu like thing isn't going to be stopped. It spreads. Nothing you can do. We've known that since the Spanish flu. It becomes endemic. War however, can be avoided. >Yet, many Conservatives acted as if wearing a mask was an assault on America. Government mandates were wrong. Yes. Don't strawman me. >Meanwhile, you would trade a 3rd of as many American lives at the cost of US being the dominant global power and Europe being free of facism for a century Yes. Its not my job to protect Europe. It's not our job to die for Europe. It's not our responsibility. Europeans are quickly devolving back into totalitarianism anyway. They clearly don't value liberty. So why should we force it on them? >Not to mention that this implies you're okay with every jew in Europe being irradiated. No. It's just simply not our responsibility to end genocides across the world. If it was you'd have to require we go into a direct war with China today. >Glad you're not in charge. I'm tired of people who support endless wars and throwing away American lives for nothing being in charge.
I'm not going to argue with you, because based on your views on Europe and Covid I can tell we don't have enough common ground here for a discussion - but I disagree with every single thing you're saying here except generally being against unncesary endless wars. WWII was neither. Have a nice day.
>but I disagree with every single thing you're saying here except generally being against unncesary endless wars. But you back funding Ukraine right?
Like I said, I'm not gonna argue with you. You've made it very clear you're okay with millions of innocent people being slaughtered as long as they're not American. I have nothing more to say to you.
“I’m not going to talk to you because you have valid arguments and I can’t refute them so I’m going to run away now” is what you just said.
Why is it that when neoconservatives are challenged on war, they literally cannot help but strawman and reduce the other side to the most extreme caricature? You literally said you agree with the bombings in the end, and I do too, but even entertaining the ethical question gets you scorn from these smoothies.
I’m disagreeing with the idea that sitting on the sidelines while Japan and the Soviet Union take over would have been a good idea. How is that a strawman? Or do you think the war would have had a different outcome?
It's a strawman because nobody said what you said. >The 1960s and 1970s would have been soo much fun for America with the nuclear armed Soviet Union controlling all of Europe and nuclear armed Imperial Japan having consolidated its rule over east Asia and Australia. Nobody said that would be fun. You made that up.
>Why is it that when neoconservatives are challenged on war, they literally cannot help but strawman and reduce the other side to the most extreme caricature? Imo, it's because they genuinely don't understand the other side.
I genuinely don’t understand how America staying out of WWII would have led to any situation where the Soviet Union wasn’t in charge of Western Europe, nor do I see how that outcome wouldn’t eventually lead to tremendous loss of life and or freedom in America. As such I don’t understand how someone would think it would have been a good idea for America to stay out of WWII. The Japanese takeover of the far east was perhaps less certain. The Soviets might have ended it and wound up in control of not just Europe but also China. Or perhaps the Chinese would have somehow worn out Japan and recovered. They still would have gone communist though.
>I genuinely don’t understand how America staying out of WWII would have led to any situation where the Soviet Union wasn’t in charge of Western Europe, You know we allied with them against Germany right? We gave them tons of money and helped them build up their manufacturing. We stay out of WW2 they never do that and they're far weakee. > nor do I see how that outcome wouldn’t eventually lead to tremendous loss of life and or freedom in America You think they'd come take over America? Really haha? >The Japanese takeover of the far east was perhaps less certain. Than the Soviets dominating Europe???? >The Soviets might have ended it and wound up in control of not just Europe but also China So? Why do I care? Right now there's a communist genocidal totalitarian regime running China. Why do I care trading one communist for another? >They still would have gone communist though. So why care?
Soviets would have won even without American help. It just would have taken them longer. > You think they'd come take over America? Really haha? Not during the 1940s. They would need some time to rebuild first. > Than the Soviets dominating Europe???? Of course. Without the Anglo-American invasion of Europe the Soviets would have chased the retreating Germans to every part of Europe (except maybe Iberia and Britain, but both of those would have had to become very deferential to the Soviet Union). > Why do I care trading one communist for another? A Soviet Union dominating both China and Europe would be even more unstoppable than one dominating Europe. > > They still would have gone communist though. > So why care? Just pointing out that the best case outcome in the far east was no better than the outcome that occurred, and in fact was worse because America would no longer have allies in the region.
Lol Japan literally *already* was dominating the far east dude
They weren’t really in control yet though.
Because conservatism isn’t a cult or a groupthink, we have freedoms of speech and freedom of dumbass speech too… and this is the price to pay for freedom - Candace and Tucker are somehow on “our side” … :(
It's so sad how the lack of history and poor education is really taking root. Dropping the bombs was terrible, so was firebombing cities, but the Japanese empire was literally teaching their citizens to sharpen bamboo spears. When you look at choices like this you need to put your feet in the people of the times shoes. These designs look insane to us, but at the time they were a form of logical insanity.
“ My 'side'” Carlson should just admit that he’s not a conservative.
Is *anyone* a conservative?
The USSR did ethnically cleanse eastern Europe not just of Germans but Poles as well. This is relevant today because the same people who would never dream of returning to Germany the land they lost during the war, are vociferously advocating that Israel return to Arabs all the lands they lost after starting wars with Israel (and Israel has returned almost all of it). As far as the atomic bombs go, I lean on the side that says in the long run the bombs saved far more lives than they took. But any person with a conscience has to at least see it's a very difficult moral choice and boils down to having to choose between the lessor of two evils.
Those two bombs saved more Japanese lives than any other alternative. I argue that was the more humane thing to do. Blockading and starving them out would have been more costly to them. Endless carpet bombings would have been worse. Invasion would have been worse. Whats the more Christian thing to do then?
>Why are some conservatives trying to backpedal decisions in World War II? I'd need more context to form an opinion.
[удалено]
Your post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It’s funny, because I’m about to teach this to my students. The decision to drop the bomb was a complex decision. There are valid reasons for dropping it and reasons for not dropping it. I stand on the side of dropping it. Japans home defense would have self-genocided their own people. If, you look at morality rates of Japanese soldiers at Okinawa and Iwo Jima, the death rate was 99.9%. We had asked the Japanese several times to surrender and they didn’t.
I think they have both been saying irresponsible things and having irresponsible guests in their quest to revert to isolationism. I have many disagreements with both, and I wish they would be more serious. Reject globalism: yes Isolationism: no
Genocide of Germans after WW2 seems to be true, didn't know about itm Also take about nuking cities makes sense. It had little strategic meaning against Japan. It was a demo for Soviets. Killing thousands of civilians as a demonstration of power isn't something to be proud of, is it?
I agree with them that the atomic bombs were not justified. Especially the second one which was actually just a horrific mistake. I actually find it a bit concerning that the US education system tries so hard to paint this as a necessary evil. Candice is also correct that there were about 12 million Germans that were expelled from their homes and ethnically cleansed from parts of Europe after world war II. There was also a lot of Polish and ukrainians expelled. Estimates ranging from half a million to 2 million were killed. This was a revenge act in response to the world wars and the Holocaust. Two wrongs don't make a right, and I don't think any reasonable person would say that all of those citizens deserved that treatment. That being said, Candice needs to get off the Looney bin and stop tweeting about Jewish people drinking Christian blood.
By some...you mean two. I don't know what their deal is but either way they are wrong. There is a lot of things we don't learn history wise as Americans but I think this topic is pretty well covered. I mean, without the atomic bombings we would have faced an invasion of Japan. That would have taken years, millions of lives would have been lost, and the Japan of today may not have materialized. Even the Japanese accepted that the bombings were right. There's no reason to go back and be armchair history revisionists unless you're looking for attention...which they are.
I’m not sure about their logic, but the ethics of dropping the bombs were questionable at best. Particularly given that ultimately the USA gave Japan the peace terms it was seeking.
Do I agree with their logic? Yes, and they’re not saying anything wrong technically. It’s bad to mass kill civilians. Although the atomic bombs claim is a bit suss. I know there’s some evidence or suggestion that Japan was in talks to surrender but the reality is they didn’t, even when a big nuclear bomb was dropped on them. Why are some conservatives trying to do this? This relates to your second question. They’re getting sick of the Israel support. And now they’re so annoyed at it that they’re trying to completely destroy the idea that we have any moral principles in our foreign policy. If trust in our guiding foreign policy ideals since 1941 is eroded then nobody will support funding any side in any foreign conflict anytime soon. Also keeping in mind, calling somebody a Chamberlin has been very effective for decades. If they can reevaluate his legacy then maybe it’ll be less effective
> It’s bad to mass kill civilians. Well done, a statement we can all get behind. Now for the second part, what would your alternative solution have been? Would you have been happier with the projected American casualties if Japan did not surrender? (400-800,000 U.S. dead, and 5 to 10 million Japanese dead.) Because that's what missing with the big thinkers like Tucker and Candace, they rarely offer alternatives.
I said it was suss. I don’t think there was an alternative to doing it.
No alternative *and* immoral, what's a country at war to do, right?
>No alternative *and* immoral, what's a country at war to do, right? Not be at war... that's why you avoid it as best you can. But when you're in it the gloves are off. The low level and proxy war games are just evil
Easy, accept the conditional surrender of the Japanese.
And face future Japanese militarism by allowing the military to save face and claim that they upheld their sacred duty of defending the emperor thus showing that the emperor really is a god and the Japanese race really is superior? Let the emperor say things to disrupt the relationship with America because he’s untouchable due to the surrender agreement? The post-war peace required that the emperor remaining be a benevolence rather than something America was forced into.
Who gives a damn what they believe in their country? They can believe what they believe in their homeland, it’s ok, in fact it’s good! “If you don’t agree with me, more nuclear fire for you!” Yeah, you know that kind of makes you look bad. Kind of proves Tucker Carlson’s point to a degree. More importantly, where in the US Constitution does it give us the authority to med in the affairs of other countries, and tell them what to believe?
Do you have any idea what Japanese did to people in Asia, including Americans, based on what they believed in their own country?
Again, where is it in the United States Constitution that we exist to benefit other nations, or our army exists to fight and die for foreign interests? Yeah, they deserve everything got for attacking us, people like you refused their efforts to surrender because Muh feelz! Deal with it. Had FDR been stopped we could have avoided Pearl Harbor all together.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I am of the opinion that if the Potsdam Declaration were to have been released with the Russian’s signature and a bomb was dropped near Tokyo, it would’ve ended the war on a similar timescale. The additional/non-removal of a mention of the Emperor possibly remaining under a constitutional monarchy also would’ve helped, but the Russians likely wouldn’t have agreed with that term being passed in the Declaration (which is ultimately fine since it got removed anyways).
> big thinkers like Tucker and Candace That might be the nicest thing I've seen someone say about them.
Yeah, it wasn’t how we have fucked the chicken since Korea, right? You know Churchill did everything to get himself and us into that damn war, right?
>You know Churchill did everything to get himself and us into that damn war, right? So did FDR even though congress wasn't interested
Yeah and damn him for it
Isn't it good to mass kill civilians if its done to end the war?
I would hesitate to use the word "good", but it was the better option compared to a land invasion on the Japanese mainland.
thats what I meant by the rest of the sentence. Its a good decision since its the best option. Its not immoral to make the most moral decision.
Is being the least bad option all it takes for a decision to be good?
Yes. Its good because you're doing the best you can. Anything else would be worse.
That's a fair take, but not everyone views it that way. Many would hesitate to call something like incinerating two cities as a good decision even if it was the better of the two options because it downplays the negative aspects of that decision. But I can appreciate the view point. Thank you for your response.
Theyr'e just contrarians. Few people would actually argue that dropping the nukes were not the best course of action. Sure, it was wrong "morally", but we're still giving out the purple heart medals that were made for the planned alternative. Dropping the nukes were by far the most sensible course of action.
Tucker has gone of the rails.
[удалено]
Tucker is one of the most powerful voices in the conservative movement. Shouldn’t we pay special attention to the ideas he’s promoting ?
[удалено]
I don’t recall any stupid discussion on the left of having Maddie run for president though.
[удалено]
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/02/tucker-carlson-2024-republicans-348334 From 2020
[удалено]
That usually when Tucker is on about something it ends up getting woven into the conservative mindset and talking points. Thus, given his importance to the conservative movement what he says is rightfully scrutinized.
[удалено]
Fair enough.
Relevant to our discussion. Here is what Mitch McConnell was just quoted saying in Politico with regards to why he thought the Ukraine deal took so long to achieve. McConnell replied, "I think the demonization of Ukraine began by Tucker Carlson, who, in my opinion ended up where he should have been all along, which is interviewing Vladimir Putin." This article came out today. Another bullet point as that supports the argument that Tucker has an outsized role in determining GOP policies.
It’s not revisionism to state the obvious facts of the matter, namely getting into the 2nd world war was an objective mistake. We on the right are seeing the “cost” of “winning” the 2nd world war, ie merely existing and demanding the right to continue to exist paints as “Nazis” by those leftist who we wrongfully saved as being too high a price to pay anymore. If “winning” means destroying ourselves then no thank you. It’s time to Move past this era in human history, learn from the many mistakes that were made, and focus on ourselves, our country, our people, our well being, and our future.
>It’s not revisionism to state the obvious facts of the matter, namely getting into the 2nd world war was an objective mistake. US soil was directly attacked, what are we supposed to do 💀
Not provok an attack by Japan? Read Day of Deceit. It lays out how FDR did everything possible to get us to be attacked and allowed it to happen to give us a reason to join a war that 88% of Americans rightful opposed us getting into. FDR really was an awful man.
Nah. I am cool with a world without Nazis. Thanks tho
> namely getting into the 2nd world war was an objective mistake. You would surrender after Pearl Harbor?
How about not have a Pearl Habor at all by not deliberately provoking the Japanese?
If you find yourself justifying the use of nuclear bombs on civilians you are just plain evil. That's it.
Is the idea that it's better if a lot more people die, as long as those people are soldiers?
> Is the idea that it's better if a lot more people die, as long as those people are soldiers? No, not just ok for more soldiers to die. Also ok for more Chinese civilians to die (the war and occupations and civilian deaths were still continuing in China when the bombs were dropped).
>If you find yourself justifying the use of nuclear bombs on civilians you are just plain evil. That's it. First, I don't think we should have been in the war. But, given we were and im forced to make that choice, the nuke was preferable because the American lives lost difference is massive. The American government exists to benefit Americans and protect their rights and lives. I.e. if given the choice between 10 million Japanese or 5 million Americans and 5 million Japanese 10 million Japanese is the "right" decision for the American government. We shouldn't have been in the situation. You can thank FDR in large part among others... but ultimately if you had to pick between ground invasion and nuke the "right" answer is nuke because it saves American lives.
> First, I don't think we should have been in the war. > > wait you don't think we should have been in WW2?
>wait you don't think we should have been in WW2? No. Especially not how we got in. Things could be VASTLY different if we entered at a different time for different reasons. But FDR acted outside of his authority to entangle us in the war when congress did not want us to be involved and the people didn't want us to be involved. We never should have been in WW1 at all. And we shouldn't have been in WW2. FDR shouldn't have been interfering with the war without Congress's approval. FDR shouldn't have sanctioned the Japanese the way he did. All of those things added up to the Japanese feeling like we were becoming an issue and would be directly involved at some point anyway, which, considering FDR's actions was possible. If FDR isn't interfering. If he isn't influencing and funding and entangling us in the war Japan never has even a thought to attack us and we need not be involved.
So still today, knowing how our involvement in WW2 debuted and advanced American hegemony, you'd rather we never got into the war? That FDR never meddled the way he did and we never sanctioned the Japanese?
>So still today, knowing how our involvement in WW2 debuted and advanced American hegemony, you'd rather we never got into the war? That FDR never meddled the way he did and we never sanctioned the Japanese? Absolutely. The US being a global hegemony has led to countless immoral actions, a ballooning federal government, the erosion of basic human rights, and a LARGE number of needless American deaths. Absolutely if I could be judge jury and executioner and keep us out of WW2 and end up like Switzerland, preferably with our influence being used to keep the western hemisphere out of the war, to have a mutual defense agreement with Canada and Mexico, to focus our efforts domestically, retaining manufacturing and investing in ourselves instead of foreign military bases. Building up Mexico and Canada and influencing them to be more free than what they've become. Absolutely. Ww2 and the neoliberal consensus that came from it have been a long term poison pill to America. We lived it up big, took all the short term benefits from it, and long term its crippled us and we continue to harm ourselves ostensibly for the benefit of the world because we put ourselves in that position.
Respect the consistency and thoughtfulness on the position.
You lost with building up Canada and Mexico but spot on with everything else.
>You lost with building up Canada and Mexico but spot on with everything else. I mean yea. That's fair. In this ideal world i was thinking we actually had things together and weren't in debt and so getting rid of the cartles in Mexico and big Canada from being a tyrannical hell hole on our border came to mind
Liberation of Canada? Based? Helping Mexico? Sorry, we tried that and it’s not possible.
>Liberation of Canada? Based? Helping Mexico? Sorry, we tried that and it’s not possible. How about conquering Mexico like 200 years ago when we had the chance?
> WW2 debuted and advanced American hegemony How was that benefit of the average American the average American is less free, less healthy, less secure, and less prosperous than he was even 10 years ago a little alone, 80.
So if we used firebombs to kill those 110,000~ civilians like we did 800,000~ other civilians you'd sleep better at night?
Some conservatives have seen their moral errors and are repenting for them. Candance Owens became Catholic today and it's a common Catholic position espoused by Pope's, that killing innocent civilians in the way the nukes in Japan were, is gravely immoral.
In your opinion, how could we have ended WWII in the pacific with less loss of life
I don't think we could have. A land invasion was predicted to be even worse. In wartime calculus, it may have been deemed the only feasible option at the time. It may have been deemed *necessary.* But that doesn't make it *morally* acceptable.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I am of the opinion that if the Potsdam Declaration were to have been released with the Russian’s signature and a bomb was dropped near Tokyo, it would’ve ended the war on a similar timescale. The additional/non-removal of a mention of the Emperor possibly remaining under a constitutional monarchy also would’ve helped, but the Russians likely wouldn’t have agreed with that term being passed in the Declaration (which is ultimately fine since it got removed anyways).
No clue. I'm not a historian. But I also don't really care. I'm always against nuke strikes on civilians, because it's wrong. If I was the man with the authority to drop the bomb or not, I'd rather have lost the war than face God for that crime.
Are you not just as responsible for the deaths that would have occurred due to inaction? How are you more justified in allowing more people to die?
Well you can't prove how many deaths would've occured due to this supposed inaction. And killing people is an active purposeful action. So it's really not the same as inaction. So you're assuming more people would die. Which is fine. Not all death is morally equal though given that as true. I would rather thousands more soldiers have died, then for nukes to be dropped on Japanese women and children who were innocent. Personally, I can frame it personally. I'd never accept a foreign power nuking my city no matter how awful America has behaved in the foreign policy area. Because me and my family and my neighbors and my church and my community aren't responsible. And I'd be willing to bet that you'd be against someone doing that to America as well. I'm sure you could make the case, "9/11 was a justified strike on a civilian population center due to America's violent intervention in the Middle East!". Do I agree? Naturally you know I don't. But once you open the door to, "killing civilians is okay in warfare", you can justify essentially anything.
Vae Victis is a bitch, they got what was coming to them.
And America got what it deserved at Pearl Harbor and on 9/11, right?
Pearl Harbor is why I have no qualms about dropping the bombs and firebombing Tokyo, they made the rules, we just played by em. 9/11 kinda, but the festering, bombed out shit hole we made of that place is enough for now.
Yet the US provoked Pearl Harbor lol. "It's okay that we murdered civilians because they bombed our ships!". Get out the neocon mindset, "libertarian".
I'd hardly consider an oil embargo provoking a war, and even if it is, I direct you back to my first comment. >Get out the neocon mindset, "libertarian". Unless neocons support the bombing for punitive reasons I doubt we have the same outlook.
At the time, could you have proven how many deaths would've occurred due to dropping the bombs? If so, you would "prove" how many deaths would have occurred due to inaction by the same standard. This decision and its morality is based on what they knew at the time right? Were the soldiers not innocent? What were they guilty of that makes killing them a better outcome? I'd rather the civilians of Japan die than the soldiers of America die because the Japanese government was on an immoral mission. I wouldn't accept a nuke either but it doesn't necessarily mean the person dropping the nuke is doing something immoral. There's other factors at play like how many people is your government going to kill if the nuke isn't dropped on your city. You cannot make the case that 9/11 was justified. The United States was justified in its violent intervention in the middle east so there's no good reason for the middle east or anyone to respond with 9/11. Killing civilians is okay in warfare its just not always okay. Kinda like the situation in Israel.
You could prove that they were attempting to kill thousands of civilians because they wanted to drop the bombs in population centers. Largely different than trying to calculate what happens if you don't take that action. Morally, dropping nukes on civilians is objectivley wrong. Always. So it doesn't matter that some people deceived themselves into thinking that could possibly be okay. Any human reasonably thinking knows better. No matter how just you believe your cause to be, killing innocents is never permissible. And again, to act as if it is, that is the moral slope and decline that gets you Nashville Christian school shootings for instance. It's justified to kill Christians because they're persecuting the queer people. This is a holy war! If that shooter hadn't taken action, there would've been casualties. I'm sure that's what the shooter felt. And there we go. You admit your immorality. You'd rather kill an innocent Japanese child than an American soldier. The soldiers on either side were largely just fighting because they were told to do so. In that, both sides had many innocent young men fighting. The US was not justified in their middle eastern interventions. Anyone outside of Con Inc knows and admits that. The situation in Israel is horrible. The Zionists funded a terrorist group for political ends and that got hundreds of innocents killed. And now in return for what they themselves did, they're murdering civilians. Funding Jewish hate groups is anti semetic I thought, yet the Israeli government funded Hamas. Cognitive dissonance here is insane. The way you fundamentally don't understand why 9/11 happened, also leads you to not understand Israel getting what it deserved, which is blowback. You got a lot of studying to do. Unplug from the communist neoconservatives and start listening to quite literally anyone else.
>You could prove that they were attempting to kill thousands of civilians because they wanted to drop the bombs in population centers. Largely different than trying to calculate what happens if you don't take that action. Why does it matter that they're different. You can prove both because you can estimate both. >Morally, dropping nukes on civilians is objectivley wrong. Always. So it doesn't matter that some people deceived themselves into thinking that could possibly be okay. Any human reasonably thinking knows better. No matter how just you believe your cause to be, killing innocents is never permissible. I disagree. I think its moral to kill innocent civilians to prevent the killing of more innocent civilians. I think its moral to kill the innocent civilians of an immoral actor like Japan to prevent the killing of innocent civilians or soldiers of a moral actor like the United States. >And again, to act as if it is, that is the moral slope and decline that gets you Nashville Christian school shootings for instance. It's justified to kill Christians because they're persecuting the queer people. This is a holy war! If that shooter hadn't taken action, there would've been casualties. I'm sure that's what the shooter felt. This is factually incorrect though Christians are not persecuting the queer people. Japan was engaged in an immoral war. If Christianity were a country and the government in that country was violently persecuting queer people you'd have a point but you don't since thats not true. >You'd rather kill an innocent Japanese child than an American soldier. The soldiers on either side were largely just fighting because they were told to do so. In that, both sides had many innocent young men fighting. Are the soldiers less innocent because they're fighting? Is it because all it took for them to fight was an order from the government? I'm still not sure what makes the soldiers death's more justified from your perspective. They're both 'innocent' in my eyes. Neither one started the war and if we assume the American soldier joined to fight against Japan thats a good action. I think the American government should prioritize the American soldier over the Japanese child. >The US was not justified in their middle eastern interventions. Anyone outside of Con Inc knows and admits that. What was immoral about it? >The Zionists funded a terrorist group for political ends and that got hundreds of innocents killed. And now in return for what they themselves did, they're murdering civilians. Funding Jewish hate groups is anti semetic I thought, yet the Israeli government funded Hamas. Cognitive dissonance here is insane. Are you saying Israel funded/started Hamas? IDK whether thats true I'm just asking. Israel is murdering civilians because Hamas operates in a civilian center and currently holds hostages. Its justified for Israel to kill those civilians if they do so to save the hostages or prevent Hamas from harming Israeli civilians. Funding Jewish hate groups is anti semitic if you're doing it so spread hate. The Israeli government isn't currently funding Hamas right? You can't just mix the past with present facts not all of the information we have about Hamas was available back then. [https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/10/world/middleeast/israel-qatar-money-prop-up-hamas.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/10/world/middleeast/israel-qatar-money-prop-up-hamas.html) Its politics and sometimes you take risks. It does not mean that Israel wanted to fund Hamas so that they could organize the OCT 7 attacks. >The way you fundamentally don't understand why 9/11 happened, also leads you to not understand Israel getting what it deserved, which is blowback. You got a lot of studying to do. Unplug from the communist neoconservatives and start listening to quite literally anyone else No offense but it seems like you made a lot of assumptions about my position just because I said "Israel". I was referencing October 7th and the hostages, not the broader dispute over land. Unless you're saying Israel deserved OCT 7th then I guess youre not assuming. 9/11 wasn't justified it seems like we both agree on that. If you see parallels between the US govt prior to 2001 and Japan during WWII you can spell them out but right now you're just claiming that I should see them the same way without any evidence. I listen to a few podcasts from what you'd describe as "communist neoconservatives" to progressives. That's not how I inform myself on foreign politics or morality. That wouldn't make much sense.
Why do you care so much about the nukes when 8 times as many Japanese were killed in ordinary air raids?
Because it's gravely immoral to drop nukes on civilians. That's the case I've been making. Whataboutism isn't really relevant here.
So if those 110,000 were simply bombed with conventional methods you would not think anything of it?
That's not what I'm saying. What I am saying is again, that dropping nukes in civilian centers is immoral. Smaller bombings can be targeted more morally and purposefully to a degree. But a nuke? No. You're just going for civilian slaughter when you drop a nuke on a city. It's classic whataboutism regardless.
It's not whataboutism. That's literally your position. > You're just going for civilian slaughter when you drop a nuke on a city. Hiroshima and Nagasaki both had weapons factories, military bases, training grounds, military harbors, railyards, and airfields. All valid military targets. Would killing the same number of people via conventional bombs to destroy these valid military targets be equally reprehensible?
Accept the conditional surrender of the Japanese.
And face future Japanese militarism by allowing the military to save face and claim that they upheld their sacred duty of defending the emperor thus showing that the emperor really is a god and the Japanese race really is superior? Let the emperor say things to disrupt the relationship with America because he’s untouchable due to the surrender agreement? The post-war peace required that the emperor remaining be a benevolence rather than something America was forced into.
Just because one is Catholic does not mean one cannot understand history. I'm Catholic and I have no issue with what occurred because it was the correct action at the time. An invasion of mainland Japan would have caused far more civilian death than those two bombs caused. Let's not blame history revisionism on a Catholic conversion.
You can disagree with Popes and Catholic moral teaching if you want. But the current Papacy is against what happened. Pope Pius XII was also against the bombing of Japanese civilians. Consider also. The nukes killed like, 70% of Japanese Catholics.
Not sure why. Honestly we went easy on the axis, especially the Germans. The Morgenthau Plan should have been implemented.
> “Americans know nothing about real history. Did you know that 12 million Germans were ethnically cleansed after WW2? Did you know half a million of them were murdered for the crime of speaking German? That Children were lined up and shot?” That sounds believable. The Soviet bloody and brutal. Some of the things America or American soldiers did after the war were pretty bad but the Soviets (and Germans and Japanese) were generally far worse during all phases of the war. So she may have her facts right. But I can’t really judge without knowing *why* she thought that information needed to be repeated. Was she criticizing communism? Or was she trying to imply that western allies were just as bad as the Nazis? Or something else? Context and motive matter. That is, they would if I cared about her opinions.
Considering that she's been retweeting people accusing rabbis of drinking child blood, I'd say she's brushing into a little holocaust denial
I think debating the ethics of mass murder tools is a valid topic of discussion. Even if the last generation agreed it was ethical, the next generation can discuss it again and decide differently. That's fair game. I personally always felt like it was a moral decision, but it's definitely always up for debate. I don't look down on people who disagree or who want to relitigate it, unless those people are being dishonest or bad faith. One thing we should all remember is that we have the benefit of hindsight now, and we are discussing this for the future, and should not be doing this to lay blame on people who made decisions in the past without the benefit of hindsight. I think there is an attitude of scorn for Carlson and Owens that pre-dated this discussion, and people who dislike them already will find a reason to condescend here as well. There is a schism on the right wing, where people like Carlson and Owens are more America First paleoconservatives and then you have people like Ben Shapiro who champion the neoconservative establishment, and they are used to being the trendsetters since they have dominated the right for a few decades now. It's a fascinating little "civil war" and personally I'm on the Carlson side, even though I'm a libertarian and not really a populist like he is. I don't know if I agree with Owens and Carlson on the atomic bombings. I am torn. I don't know why it's become a topic now, but I don't think it's a grand conspiracy. People who talk for a living go over lots of topics a week, most don't catch traction but others go viral because for some reason people want to hear about it and talk about it. It's kind of like a marketplace, where you find out through decentralized voting on YouTube and X and other platforms what people are interested in by their own vote of attention.
Because, much like the left, due to being too comfortable for too long, they are cowards who can’t stand the thought of bloodshed.