From: jtem01@gmail.com   
      
   On 1/15/26 9:02 PM, Mike wrote:   
      
   > I found it fascinating too, only problem is I have no   
   > way to validate if it's true   
      
   Why not?   
      
   And this is the typical internet case of "What the hell   
   do you want to think needs verifying?"   
      
   You couldn't verify that Japan was at war with the U.S.?   
      
   You couldn't verify Kamikaze attacks?   
      
   The "Can't verify" claims are always self fulfilling   
   (rigged) in that they are never specific.   
      
   It's the norm on usenet. I might even be surprised if   
   one day I posted eight points and someone was like, "But   
   is there anyway to establish numbers 2 & 7?"   
      
   Never happens. It's always a blanket, by itself ridiculous   
   claim about an inability to verify...   
      
    > >   
   > The comment mixes real historical facts with   
   > sweeping generalizations and moral certainty.   
      
   No it doesn't.   
      
   > 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.   
      
   This is incorrect. The treaty also banned chemical   
   weapons, for instance, which Japan had used.   
      
   > However, the argument shifts from explaining   
   > context to justifying actions, and from   
   > analysis to dehumanization.   
      
   No it doesn't.   
      
      
   They were a ruthless enemy that invested heavily into   
   convincing their enemies that the lives of their own   
   people are utterly worthless. And the allies started   
   to believe them.   
      
   > The claim that Japan "weaponized the entire   
   > population" is exaggerated.   
      
   No it's not. In preparation for the invasion they did   
   exactly that. They went so far as to issue spears because   
   they lack the guns to arm everyone.   
      
   > Civilian   
   > mobilization plans existed late in the war   
      
   And we are talking about late in the war:  The invasion   
   of Japan and the bombs as an alternative.   
      
   That's pretty late in the war:  1945. Germany has already   
   surrendered!   
      
   > but they were uneven, poorly equipped, and   
   > largely symbolic.   
      
   Translation:  "Everything JTEM said is true, I just agreed   
   with it, but I disagree over some irrelevant shit I just   
   made up."   
      
   > The suggestion "Why wouldn't you gas them?"   
   > is especially troubling.   
      
   Who cares?  They did stockpile gas to do exactly that. This   
   is a fact. Troubling or not, they stockpiled gas for the   
   invasion.   
      
   > Chemical weapons   
   > were not used, despite stockpiles, because   
   > Allied leaders understood the moral and   
   > strategic consequences.   
      
   No, because they didn't invade. They dropped atomic bombs.   
      
   For real.   
      
   The chemical weapons were the invasion. The invasion didn't   
   happen.   
      
   > The claim that Americans universally supported   
   > the atomic bomb is also false.   
      
   No it is not.   
      
   > Even in 1945,   
   > scientists, officers, and civilians expressed   
   > doubt. Truman himself wrestled with the   
   > decision. Consensus was not absolute.   
      
   What doubt? What did they doubt?  That it would work? That   
   the color was attractive? That, it would scare the Russians?   
      
   What doubt?   
      
   It's saying words without actually sating anything here.   
      
   > 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.   
      
   Irrelevant. Nobody wrestled with the morality beforehand.   
      
   > The core flaw is the idea that brutality by   
   > one side removes moral limits on the other.   
      
   It's not a flaw and, NOW GET THIS, it was about saving   
   American lives and ending the war as quickly as possible.   
      
   It's was never "They're bad. Let's make them suffer," as   
   this idiocy makes out.   
      
   It was "Let's save as many American lives as we can, and   
   end this war as quickly as we can."   
      
   I am sure that Japan's countless war crimes made it easy   
   to discount or ignore Japanese concerns but, the goal was   
   to end the war as fast as they could with as few dead as   
   they could achieve.   
      
   > Dismissing modern criticism as mere hindsight   
      
   That's all it is. You can pretend that it isn't but it is   
   nothing more than apply the present to the past.   
      
   > The post captures wartime psychology fairly   
   > well, but overstates inevitability   
      
   Such as...???   
      
   > ignores   
   > dissent,   
      
   There wasn't any.   
      
   > and crosses from history into moral   
   > surrender.   
      
   Odd thing to say, seeing how it's A.I. doing the 2-bit   
   moralizing here.   
      
      
      
   --   
   https://jtem.tumblr.com/   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)