• ceenote@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    47
    ·
    5 days ago

    Showing us that attempting to bomb a civilian population into submission doesn’t work. The only people who think it will work this time do it on the premise that “those people” are fundamentally weaker. You know - racists.

    • FishFace@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      5 days ago

      That’s part of it, but it’s also just a fundamental misconception it seems everyone shares, that making life horrible will force surrender.

      And in fairness, there is a level of destruction that will do that - ask Japan about that.

      • cabb@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        Japan was already going to surrender. Their final decision came down more to the Soviets opening up a second front on top of the overall progress of the US in its island hopping campaign and defeat of the IJN than the use of Nuclear bombs.

        • FishFace@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          That is far from agreed upon. A popular view is that neither the atomic bomb alone, nor the Soviet invasion of Manchuria alone, would have caused Japan to surrender when it did.

    • starlinguk@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      When the Allieds flattened numerous cities in Germany they already knew this. They just did it because they were pissed off.

    • CosmoNova@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      Are you calling the English and Americans racists now because they did this tactic on a much larger scale during this war? People are still dying from American warheads in Germany.