From: user6340@newsgrouper.org.invalid   
      
   Mike  posted:   
   > On 2026-01-15 17:53, Steven Douglas wrote:   
   > > JTEM  posted:   
   > >> On 1/15/26 7:33 PM, Steven Douglas wrote:   
   > >>   
   > >>> Some estimates are that 30 MILLION lives were saved when   
   > >>> the Japanese leaders came to their senses and surrendered.   
   > >>> Not that any of this information will affect your moral   
   > >>> confusion, which I'm sure you will continue to exhibit on   
   > >>> a regular basis.   
   > >>   
   > >> I have a very different perspective.   
   > >>   
   > >> The Japanese were not signers to the Geneva Convention. They   
   > >> were opposed to the very idea of "Rules of war," and from   
   > >> the beginning SHOCKED the allies with their cruelty. They   
   > >> regularly enslaved, tortured and even murdered prisoners.   
   > >> They conducted rape on an industrial scale, quite literally,   
   > >> forcing women to serve their ranks as "Comfort Girls" i.e.   
   > >> prostitutes. They conducted medical experiments on prisoners,   
   > >> both military and civilian. They laced cigarettes with opium   
   > >> for sale in their conquered territories to make them even   
   > >> more addictive. They even employed chemical and biological   
   > >> weapons on occasion. And, for the defense of their homeland,   
   > >> they were mobilizing, WEAPONIZING the entire population.   
   > >>   
   > >> Ending the war meant invading Japan and invading Japan meant   
   > >> a war against the population. Not an army but the population,   
   > >> because the Japanese war machine had mobilized/weaponized the   
   > >> civilians.   
   > >>   
   > >> The U.S. military stockpiled chemical weapons -- nerve agents,   
   > >> I believe -- for use in the invasion BECAUSE they would not   
   > >> be fighting an army but literally EVERYBODY. They wanted an   
   > >> area weapon. They also had already slugged it through insane   
   > >> battles with the Japanese held up in any hole the could dig or   
   > >> cave they could find. Gas is a great weapon.   
   > >>   
   > >> Oo!  The Japanese view that the lives of their own people were   
   > >> without value also came at a price. Banzai charges, suicide   
   > >> missiles and subs, feigning surrender to attack the soldiers   
   > >> taking them prisoner... the wounded murdering medics trying to   
   > >> help them... KAMIKAZE ATTACKS...   
   > >>   
   > >> The problem here is the mentality. After spending every waking   
   > >> moment trying to convince your enemy that your lives are   
   > >> absolutely worthless, your enemy starts to believe you. AND   
   > >> THEN the allies find out that the entire population -- men,   
   > >> women & children -- were being mobilized as suicide fighters!   
   > >>   
   > >> Why wouldn't you gas them?   
   > >>   
   > >> And once the atomic bombs were ready, why not drop them   
   > >> instead?   
   > >>   
   > >> Given what was going on THEN, given what the men fighting that   
   > >> war SAW WITH THEIR OWN EYES, what THEY EXPECTED TO HAPPEN TO   
   > >> THEM, what they were going to have to do... why not just nuke   
   > >> them?   
   > >>   
   > >> BUT, there was one more factor:  Stalin!   
   > >>   
   > >> Stalin had entered the war. The allies didn't just want Japan   
   > >> to surrender, they wanted Japan to surrender QUICKLY, before   
   > >> Stalin gobbled up too much of Asia for the Soviet Union. Only   
   > >> the "Atom Bomb" offered hope for that.   
   > >>   
   > >> I honestly have no doubt that ANYONE, or virtually anyone, who   
   > >> lived at that time, knew what was at stake, knew how Japan had   
   > >> conducted the war and knew what American troops could expect...   
   > >> I don't believe that ANYONE would have said "No" to the bomb.   
   > >>   
   > >> Anyone who claims otherwise is either mistaking their hindsight   
   > >> for insight or is sadly misinformed.   
   > >   
   > > Wow, that was an excellent post. Sometimes you amaze   
   > > me with the clarity of your opinions, and this one   
   > > is as good as it gets. I just hope Mike is able to   
   > > comprehend what you wrote.   
   >   
   > I found it fascinating too, only problem is I have no   
   > way to validate if it's true, and I don't just trust   
   > information and I am no expert on these subjects.   
      
   It's obvious that you're no expert on this topic,   
   but just having a halfway decent education would   
   have informed you that the basic facts that JTEM   
   laid out are historically accurate.   
   >   
   >    
   >   
   > The comment mixes real historical facts with   
   > sweeping generalizations and moral certainty.   
   >   
   > It is true that Imperial Japan committed   
   > severe war crimes: mistreatment of prisoners,   
   > forced labor, medical experimentation, mass   
   > rape, and the coercion of women into sexual   
   > slavery known as "comfort women." Japan had   
   > not ratified the 1929 Geneva Convention on   
   > POWs, though this does not excuse its conduct.   
   > These realities hardened Allied attitudes.   
   >   
   > However, the argument shifts from explaining   
   > context to justifying actions, and from   
   > analysis to dehumanization.   
   >   
   > The claim that Japan "weaponized the entire   
   > population" is exaggerated.   
      
   They were in the process of doing that, no matter   
   what CrapGPT says about it.   
   >   
   > Civilian   
   > mobilization plans existed late in the war,   
   > but they were uneven, poorly equipped, and   
   > largely symbolic. Civilians were not a   
   > coherent suicide army.   
      
   They were working on it.   
   >   
   > Conflating militarist   
   > ideology with the worth of civilian lives   
   > reflects wartime propaganda more than fact.   
      
   It was the Japanese leadership that didn't value the   
   lives of their own citizens.   
   >   
   > The suggestion "Why wouldn't you gas them?"   
   > is especially troubling. Chemical weapons   
   > were not used,   
      
   At that point, because the ground invasion didn't   
   happen (and all the MANY MILLIONS of deaths that   
   would have ensued) thanks to the use of the atomic   
   bombs.   
   >   
   > despite stockpiles, because   
   > Allied leaders understood the moral and   
   > strategic consequences. Considering an act   
   > does not make it defensible.   
   >   
   > The claim that Americans universally supported   
   > the atomic bomb is also false.   
      
   JTEM didn't make that claim. The point is that the   
   use of the bombs stopped the war, and when that   
   happened there was far more support for having   
   used the bombs than there is now (after years   
   of ignorant people who no longer understand how   
   important it was to get Japan to surrender).   
   >   
   > Even in 1945,   
   > scientists, officers, and civilians expressed   
   > doubt. Truman himself wrestled with the   
   > decision. Consensus was not absolute.   
      
   But there was a lot more support at that time   
   than there is now.   
   >   
   > The Stalin factor is real. Soviet entry into   
   > the war influenced the urgency of Japan's   
   > surrender. This explains decision-making, but   
   > does not morally settle it.   
   >   
   > The core flaw is the idea that brutality by   
   > one side removes moral limits on the other.   
   > Understanding fear and expectations explains   
   > the choice, but explanation is not absolution.   
   >   
   > Dismissing modern criticism as mere hindsight   
   > is intellectually lazy.   
      
   No, it's the modern criticism that is lazy. CrapGPT   
   is lazy. Please tell it I said that. Thanks.   
   >   
   > Ethical reflection requires hindsight.   
      
   As long as the facts of the time remain the same,   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)