And the real rub with those negotiations was the U.S. simply did not want Japan to keep the emperor, their religious head. That was the whole point of the unconditional surrender. It would be like saying to a Christian "We'll only allow you to surrender if you let us crucify Jesus" and then being like "Why won't these motherfuckers listen to reason?"
Yeah, Truman deserves tons of blame for both the Cold War and the postwar weakening of U.S. labor. Real high up on the list of worst presidents when you look at the big picture.
I’ve had people on HERE push that shit on me. I got called a fucking cracker last time this came up, lol
Yeah I've noticed that a lot of americans' brains go squirrelly when it comes to the nukes, even if they're completely reasonable people otherwise. I had this as a debate topic in a 200 level philosophy class on ethics, and I was maybe 1 of 5 people in a class of 30 or so who argued it was completely unjustified.
I just mean that we essentially required the destruction of their religion (by proving the non-divinity of their spiritual head) as a part of their surrender which I think most rational people would see as unacceptable terms.
Okay but they didn't punish Hirohito, he lived on as a nominal emperor until 1989. They wanted to humiliate the Japanese people, not punish a war criminal. In fact, I'd absolutely give legal amnesty to a war criminal if it meant a peaceful surrender without nuking two cities.
the early japanese peace attempts also wanted to have self-supervised disarmament and war crime prosecution. if there was a plain choice between emperor and nuking keeping hirohito would be the correct choice, but it was really closer to 'maintain the japanese empire pre-1936' or continuing hostilities.
I mean, I certainly agree but I think most people do not; as evident by the fact that throughout history and to this day mass violence and murder is perpetrated in the name of faiths widely held in high regard and unquestioned in their divinity by the larger global community.
E: I don't want this to come off as argumentative so I'll explain a little more. With Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc. we don't force them to accept their god isn't divine. We (assuming you're a faithless heathen as well) carry on about our lives with this knowledge, but we don't force the major faiths of the world to confront this truth. I think quite a few people would call that some kind of cultural genocide or something if you tried. I'm not defending the Shinto Nationalism (or whatever the proper term is for it,) just saying that it's kind of unprecedented to just demolish an entire faith like that.
And the real rub with those negotiations was the U.S. simply did not want Japan to keep the emperor, their religious head. That was the whole point of the unconditional surrender. It would be like saying to a Christian "We'll only allow you to surrender if you let us crucify Jesus" and then being like "Why won't these motherfuckers listen to reason?"
And they kept the emperor anyway after we dropped the bombs
BIG TRUTH, the nukes were just a ginormous dick-swinging move and the U.S. needs to be held accountable (lol.)
While we're at it, fuck Truman for literally creating the conditions for mutually assured destruction.
Yeah, Truman deserves tons of blame for both the Cold War and the postwar weakening of U.S. labor. Real high up on the list of worst presidents when you look at the big picture.
Or body-count. Even his fucking generals didn't want to nuke the cities.
deleted by creator
Yeah I've noticed that a lot of americans' brains go squirrelly when it comes to the nukes, even if they're completely reasonable people otherwise. I had this as a debate topic in a 200 level philosophy class on ethics, and I was maybe 1 of 5 people in a class of 30 or so who argued it was completely unjustified.
deleted by creator
if jesus was a war criminal
I just mean that we essentially required the destruction of their religion (by proving the non-divinity of their spiritual head) as a part of their surrender which I think most rational people would see as unacceptable terms.
people might view getting away with mass murder on the pretense of 'divinity' as unacceptable as well
Okay but they didn't punish Hirohito, he lived on as a nominal emperor until 1989. They wanted to humiliate the Japanese people, not punish a war criminal. In fact, I'd absolutely give legal amnesty to a war criminal if it meant a peaceful surrender without nuking two cities.
the early japanese peace attempts also wanted to have self-supervised disarmament and war crime prosecution. if there was a plain choice between emperor and nuking keeping hirohito would be the correct choice, but it was really closer to 'maintain the japanese empire pre-1936' or continuing hostilities.
I mean, I certainly agree but I think most people do not; as evident by the fact that throughout history and to this day mass violence and murder is perpetrated in the name of faiths widely held in high regard and unquestioned in their divinity by the larger global community.
E: I don't want this to come off as argumentative so I'll explain a little more. With Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc. we don't force them to accept their god isn't divine. We (assuming you're a faithless heathen as well) carry on about our lives with this knowledge, but we don't force the major faiths of the world to confront this truth. I think quite a few people would call that some kind of cultural genocide or something if you tried. I'm not defending the Shinto Nationalism (or whatever the proper term is for it,) just saying that it's kind of unprecedented to just demolish an entire faith like that.
secular states are not religioualy inert. forcing people to abandon religion as the guide for government does change religious belief imo.
and the us did force the japanese that way