We never nuked the Nazis...But even if we did, are you saying that the Nazis being Nazis would've justified vaporizing every civilian man, woman, and child in a city or two?

Whether or not you'd say it was justified is a different beast altogether than having to be the one that made it possible in terms of responsibility.

Tangentially, many firing squads will have only one person have a real bullet(s) while the rest have blanks so that they don't all have to feel responsible for ending a life. Even that is setting justification aside.

[–] Primarily0617@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

the Nazis being Nazis would’ve justified vaporizing every civilian man, woman, and child in a city or two

The bomb didn't "vaporize every man woman and child".
175 000 Volksturm (civilians pressed into service by their government, including women and children) died fighting the Allied advance into Germany. Dropping the bomb to end the war early would have prevented these deaths.
This isn't to mention the number of civilians who died as a result of being too close to the fighting. 125 000 civilians died in the Battle of Berlin alone.
Also consider the number of soldiers who died on both sides which wouldn't have happened had the war been ended early. The US produced so many Purple Heart medals (given to those who are killed or wounded while serving) in preparation for their invasion of Japan that they're still using them today.

So yes dropping the bomb to end the war in Europe early would have been justified. Now please stop being a literal nazi apologist.

[–] MeetInPotatoes@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

>Literal Nazi apologist

Holy fuck...how about you don't use words that you so obviously don't understand.

[–] Primarily0617@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

apologist

"both sides were as bad as each other" is very obviously a stance in defence of the nazis, so i don't know what you think "apologist" means

[–] MeetInPotatoes@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Good thing I never fucking said that and would never agree with the statement. The point of the comic is that our lack of perspective taking and dehumanization of others enables terrible atrocities. That factor of dehumanizing propaganda exists on both sides but I'm not taking the comic so far as to equate us to the Nazis (again, not who we nuked in the first place) That's obviously a gross oversimplification.

You'd get more from the comic if you put Germany and Japan on the left. The mechanic of dehumanization oscillated out of control until we felt justified wiping out entire cities of Japanese. But if you're the one responsible for the atomic bomb, the atrocities of foreign soldiers would likely give you little peace as your invention vaporized kids in playgrounds...and babies in strollers and wombs...mothers who just wanted this stupid war to be over so their husband could come home and they could raise a family.

Next time, just ask a question before putting your dumbfuck words in someone else's mouth to justify calling them Nazi apologists.

"Are you saying both sides were as bad as each other ?" No, of course not. "Oh, my bad."

^ That's how this should've went.

[–] Primarily0617@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

so you just don't understand the implications of the original message you posted?

otherwise please reply with a justification of how:

Nazi propaganda that sought to justify the holocaust was equivalent to allied propaganda
Nazi censorship of truth that aimed to hide their death camps from the world was equivalent to allied censorship of truth
The Nazi's wicked despot who was quite literally Hitler was equivalent to any leading figure on the allied side
etc.

you made an incredibly silly argument, but the even sillier thing to do right now is to stand by it

just ask a question before putting your dumbfuck words in someone else’s mouth

you not understanding the implications of your own argument isn't my problem, friend

[–] MeetInPotatoes@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You've given up the right to be responded to.

[–] Primarily0617@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

😭

[–] Rinox@feddit.it 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You're assuming that Hitler would have just surrendered after seeing the atomic bomb, but there's no actual indication he would have. He was fucking nuts. At some point there was an actual race to Berlin, the Wehrmacht was completely annihilated, women and kids were on the front lines and still no surrender. He would have sacrificed every last German before surrendering

[–] Primarily0617@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

We'd be having the exact same conversation about how the Japanese would've never surrendered had we not the proof otherwise.

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The belief was that the bombs would save lives compared to an invasion on both sides. There's been a lot of retrospective analysis, but most of it agrees with that assessment. An invasion of Japan would have been absolutely ruinous for Japan's civilian population. But it's still a question of whether the ends justify the means in a lesser of two evils situation.

[–] MeetInPotatoes@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

I can see that viewpoint and not argue against it, that might be totally right. I'm trying to point out that agreeing with it and being the person or one of the main people who made the bomb possible are very different.

Being ok with the decision as a member of a country at war and being ok with the decision as someone who made the bomb are very different.