Auschwitz and Hiroshima/Nagasaki

[Tokuopolis]

I was watching this video the other day "A Warning to Those Visiting Auschwitz" and someone I know visited a few months ago. The Holocaust is one of the greatest tragedies in the history of mankind.

However, I wonder if only visiting sites of the atrocities of the Axis could create a biased view of history where you do not understand the flaws of both sides. The Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are one of the most debated actions in history, and undoubtedly the most controversial thing the Allies ever did.

My question is this: Should those who visit Auschwitz-Birkenau also Hiroshima/Nagasaki, to see the devastation and death the Allies (Americans) caused?

In my opinion, I believe they should, If possible

[Korasta]

Personally I'd say that the nuclear bombings were justified, but hey, that's just my opinion. Not that I'm denying the thousands of dead children and "innocent" civilians (put in quotations 'cause they weren't all innocent).

On another note, I don't think you can really equate an act that was part of a world war to the genocide of approximately 12 million.

[Right wing humour squad]

Wut.
Atomic bombs were the least destructive way.

[Gospel Power]

Yes, to understand that the west also holds crimes against humanity

[Fenriis]

Personally I'd say that the nuclear bombings were justified, but hey, that's just my opinion. Not that I'm denying the thousands of dead children and "innocent" civilians (put in quotations 'cause they weren't all innocent).

On another note, I don't think you can really equate an act that was part of a world war to the genocide of approximately 12 million.

Except the "unconditional surrender" was a evil demand to force a occupation on them to wage war on their civilisation just like they did in Europe. The allies were the real genocidal ones from Nagasaki to Dresden.

[Costa Fierro]

There are differences between the Holocaust and the use of atomic weaponry, chiefly among which was the intent behind it. The Holocaust was primarily about eliminating a group of people off the face of the planet forever, and there was extreme malice behind those who perpetrated the Holocaust. The use of atomic weaponry was about ending a war through overwhelming use of force, and without their deployment, we would not have the information we have on their effects we have today. One could argue that the use of atomic weapons was questionable, but at the time Japan was not ready to throw in the towel, despite suffering significant military defeats. The use of atomic weapons killed hundreds of thousands of people in the most horrific way imaginable, but the suffering and deaths were already on par with the hundreds of thousands of civilians who had perished in the firebombing campaigns conducted by the USAF on Japanese cities, and would be eclipsed by the millions more who would die if the Allies invaded the Home Islands.

[Korasta]

Personally I'd say that the nuclear bombings were justified, but hey, that's just my opinion. Not that I'm denying the thousands of dead children and "innocent" civilians (put in quotations 'cause they weren't all innocent).

On another note, I don't think you can really equate an act that was part of a world war to the genocide of approximately 12 million.

Except the "unconditional surrender" was a evil demand to force a occupation on them to wage war on their civilisation just like they did in Europe. The allies were the real genocidal ones from Nagasaki to Dresden.

Well, yeah, unconditional surrender's kind of a given in a war between great powers. Way to state the obvious.
And you can't compare a firebombing campaign (albeit an unpleasant one) to the aforementioned Holocaust.

[Agarntrop]

Watch this

https://youtu.be/SwdmgOfnQ9s

It will make even hard line conservatives question Hiroshima Nagasaki bombings.

[The Huskar Social Union]

As bad as they were, (Which they were, killed a lot of people, and hopefully they are never used again that way) the atomic bombs were the right choice to make, an invasion of japan by the allies (and most likely from the soviets too, considering they had moved on the islands north of the japanese mainland and Manchuria) would have been far more bloody, probably millions dead and wounded.

But yeah i think those two bombings should also be remembered, as another reminder of that war, and memorials/museums, the cities themselves etc should be visited by people. Its history, you should learn it.

[The Huskar Social Union]

Personally I'd say that the nuclear bombings were justified, but hey, that's just my opinion. Not that I'm denying the thousands of dead children and "innocent" civilians (put in quotations 'cause they weren't all innocent).

On another note, I don't think you can really equate an act that was part of a world war to the genocide of approximately 12 million.

Except the "unconditional surrender" was a evil demand to force a occupation on them to wage war on their civilisation just like they did in Europe. The allies were the real genocidal ones from Nagasaki to Dresden.

Yeah no, the Axis were far far far fucking worse.

[Astrumei]

The Allies certainly committed a myriad of war crimes, but it's disingenuous and wrong to compare Nazi extermination camps to the atomic bombings.

The Holocaust, and the extermination camps that arose from it, was a policy deliberately instituted by the Nazi government and ingrained into every layer of its society, with the singular aim of annihilating specific groups of people from the planet. The Allies never even got close to doing something like that - the nuclear bombings, specifically, were intended for a purely militaristic purpose. You might debate how important they were in the end, but the fact stands that they were not used to try and wipe out the Japanese people, but to force them to surrender. In fact, the Americans even dropped leaflets warning the Japanese to evacuate their cities before the bombings.

If you really want to point to the shitty things the Allies did, there are a myriad: the Katyn massacre, Japanese internment camps, the rapes and murders of German civilians by Allied troops (N.B.: these were, obviously, not government policy, but were mostly ignored), etcetera. Maybe the atomic bombings fit on that list as well, but I don't know.

Either way, none of them even come close to the Holocaust, and shouldn't even be expressed in the same sentence.

[Vassenor]

Are we trying to do the BUT BOTH SIDES thing again?

Although there is still the question about whether Nagasaki was actually about forcing the Japanese to the table or rattling the saber at the Soviets.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Other than being the debut of the most destructive weapon in history and utterly shattering the Japanese psyche, the atomic bombing were just run of the mill strategic bombing.

Are we trying to do the BUT BOTH SIDES thing again?

"But both sides" can be a valid point when one is on neither side.

Although there is still the question about whether Nagasaki was actually about forcing the Japanese to the table or rattling the saber at the Soviets.

Why not both?

*Cheers in Spanish*

[Dooom35796821595]

The firebombing of Tokyo did far worse then the atomic bombings. Again, the cost of war. A war the Japanese instigated at Pearl Harbor.

The nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were merciful compared to the conventional alternatives.

[Erdogan in cool sunglasses]

First thing is Auschwitz wasn't liberated by Western Allies but by Soviets. Soviets are generally portaited as bad as possible in Poland and any war crime commited by them is highlined. But Auschwitz is not a place where it should be provided. Auschwitz was a place of mass extermination of Jews and Poles and everything Soviets did to liberate the camp prisoners was less evil than allowing the camp and the whole Reich function more time. Soviet soldiers weren't angels, they raped German, Polish and Jewish women, stole everything which wasn't peggedto the ground but they weren't doing organised mass-murder of civillians.

Atomic bombings were something different. They didn't liberated anyone, they were just thrown to make Japan surrender and to save several thousands of American soldiers.

But I don't agree that atomic bombing is killing in the most horrific way. If I had to choose, I would like to evaporate in one second instead of being tortured by jihadist with rusted knife.

[HC Eredivisie]

Yes, to understand that the west also holds crimes against humanity

Because Germany is not in the west?

[Magelves]

Yes. Those who view the Allies as having been beyond reproach have a distorted view of history, and at this point, nobody can honestly deny the wrongdoings of their own country...while some will be quick to point out the obvious, in stating that Japan started the war against the United States, the more obvious point of discussion relevant to this conversation is that a highly-destructive, largely experimental weapon was used against two civilian populations by the USA. As an American who also loves Japan, I see how the Japanese were wrong to attack Pearl Harbor, but I also see how the use of nuclear weapons against Japan was regrettable, and that at the very least, there should be compassion for those who suffered as a result of those weapons. One can argue, perhaps endlessly, that "it needed to happen to save lives", but they don't actually know that. All we can do now is speculate about a past event and possible alternate histories, both of which are largely vain contemplations. I think it's worth noting that the Japanese today, generally speaking, regret that Japan attacked the United States. However, they also resent the callousness that often accompanies American attitudes toward the atomic bombings.

[Petrolheadia]

I was watching this video the other day "A Warning to Those Visiting Auschwitz" and someone I know visited a few months ago. The Holocaust is one of the greatest tragedies in the history of mankind.

However, I wonder if only visiting sites of the atrocities of the Axis could create a biased view of history where you do not understand the flaws of both sides. The Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are one of the most debated actions in history, and undoubtedly the most controversial thing the Allies ever did.

My question is this: Should those who visit Auschwitz-Birkenau also Hiroshima/Nagasaki, to see the devastation and death the Allies (Americans) caused?

In my opinion, I believe they should, If possible

As Costa Fierro already said, there is a world of difference between deliberate extermination of certain groups and an act meant to stop a war with projected millions of casualties.

[Right wing humour squad]

Yes. Those who view the Allies as having been beyond reproach have a distorted view of history, and at this point, nobody can honestly deny the wrongdoings of their own country...while some will be quick to point out the obvious, in stating that Japan started the war against the United States, the more obvious point of discussion relevant to this conversation is that a highly-destructive, largely experimental weapon was used against two civilian populations by the USA. As an American who also loves Japan, I see how the Japanese were wrong to attack Pearl Harbor, but I also see how America was perhaps too quick to use weapons of mass destruction, and that at the very least, there should be compassion for those who suffered as a result of those weapons. One can argue, perhaps endlessly, that "it needed to happen to save lives", but they don't actually know that. All we can do now is speculate about a past event and possible alternate histories, both of which are largely vain contemplations. I think it's worth noting that the Japanese today, generally speaking, regret that Japan attacked the United States. However, they also resent the callousness that often accompanies American attitudes toward the atomic bombings.

Are you a weabu?
The atomic bombing was a good thing.
I bet the Japs regretted attacking a lot more just after the bombings.

[Petrolheadia]

Yes. Those who view the Allies as having been beyond reproach have a distorted view of history, and at this point, nobody can honestly deny the wrongdoings of their own country.

The US isn't my country, so there died your point for our conversation.

while some will be quick to point out the obvious, in stating that Japan started the war against the United States, the more obvious point of discussion relevant to this conversation is that a highly-destructive, largely experimental weapon was used against two civilian populations by the USA.

It was an attack meant to bring a war victory closer by attacking strategic points of your enemy.

As an American who also loves Japan, I see how the Japanese were wrong to attack Pearl Harbor, but I also see how America was perhaps too quick to use weapons of mass destruction,

>few years of war with millions of casualties around the Pacific
>nah mate, we should not try to finish it

and that at the very least, there should be compassion for those who suffered as a result of those weapons.

As if there wasn't.

One can argue, perhaps endlessly, that "it needed to happen to save lives", but they don't actually know that.

We don't actually know if we don't live in a computer simulation.

What we know is that if the longer Pacific Theater lasted for over 3 weeks more with half the casualty rate, the death toll increase would be higher than the highest bombing estimate.

[Ironcastle]

Here's my take on it:

The Holocaust was a war crime beyond war crimes. It was unique in just how evil it was. Nothing could possibly justify it. Of course, it's even further amplified by the fact that the Germans started the war with the express intent of murdering millions of civilians in Eastern Europe.

The atomic bombs, however, were a strategic necessity to end the war in the Pacific. They're nothing like the Holocaust, and shouldn't be compared at all. In fact, strategic bombing as a whole isn't even a war crime. Fun fact: nobody was ever convicted of war crimes for strategic bombing, Allied or Axis. Also, Japan started the war. They were the ones who invaded and slaughtered their way through the Pacific, they were the ones who attacked Pearl Harbor. If they didn't want to be bombed, maybe they should have, you know, not attacked everyone in Asia. Furthermore, the alternative to the atomic bombs was a land invasion. Millions upon millions of civilians would have died in that: far more than the air campaign ever killed.

To quote someone who understood this: "They sowed the wind, and now, they are going to reap the whirlwind."

[The Empire of Pretantia]

while some will be quick to point out the obvious, in stating that Japan started the war against the United States, the more obvious point of discussion relevant to this conversation is that a highly-destructive, largely experimental weapon was used against two civilian populations by the USA.

Both targets were military in nature.

As an American who also loves Japan, I see how the Japanese were wrong to attack Pearl Harbor, but I also see how America was perhaps too quick to use weapons of mass destruction,

I don't see how.

and that at the very least, there should be compassion for those who suffered as a result of those weapons. One can argue, perhaps endlessly, that "it needed to happen to save lives", but they don't actually know that.

We do though. The alternative was an invasion which would've made Normandy look like a beach trip.

I think it's worth noting that the Japanese today, generally speaking, regret that Japan attacked the United States. However, they also resent the callousness that often accompanies American attitudes toward the atomic bombings.

Understandable, but who cares.

[Magelves]

Like I said, some people will rely on overused talking points, or other irrelevant points of discussion, to deny the fact that empathy and compassion should be shown toward the victims of anything as tragic as a nuclear bombing. Such people are invariably lacking in good character.

[Right wing humour squad]

Like I said, some people will rely on overused talking points, or other irrelevant points of discussion, to deny the fact that empathy and compassion should be shown toward the victims of anything as tragic as a nuclear bombing. Such people are invariably lacking in good character.

Atomic bombing was the more ethical choice by far.

[Magelves]

Understandable, but who cares.

A lot of people care. The people who care the most are the same ones who understand the need for caring, as it builds and maintains relationships between individuals and countries. I hate to state what should be obvious, but the relationship between America and Japan is an important one. Even if it weren't, empathy and compassion are critical traits in having a good life and in being a good person. Hopefully you can come to understand that someday, if not right now.