Hacker News Reader

Comment by hnracer | Hacker News Reader

Not a valid analogy. The allies were trying to beat a fascist autocracy that had just ravaged multiple countries and committed heinous war crimes with no indication of having a willingness to slow their pursuit. That's in no way comparable to the current situation of Iran building a nuke to deter or obliterate Israel.

View on HN

Oh, come on, history is written by the victors. I am not saying that they have not did bad things, but if Germany had won, they would say the same about U.S., who, just as a reminder, dropped two nuclear bombs in civilian cities.

Both sides thought what they were doing was right and there is always a way to justify the means.

Disclaimer: I am from a country which was neutral during the WW2.

Edit: Here is the thing, I do not want this to become a "Who is the most evil?" thread, so I will not be responding except for this edit (I suggest everyone to do the same).

The point of this comment was that, public perspective is something that can easily be manipulated. The phrase "History is written by the victors." means exactly that. I just wanted to mention that Germany would use the example I gave to justify their actions "Wow they are evil. see what they did?". One should always be mindful where they are standing and check if they are being manipulated or not.

If this comment starts a flame war, dang, please feel free to delete the whole thread.

Sure Germany would have said they were the good guys. The difference is in what they did: seek out to exterminate tens of millions of Slavs, Jews, and other groups they considered inferior.

I get that it's important to see history from multiple points of view, but this idea that "Both sides thought what they were doing was right and there is always a way to justify the means" is just unabashed moral relativism.

But we didn't even need the nuclear bomb to beat the Germans.

True, but the nuclear bomb's original target was Germany and the parent comment was referring to Germany. Much of the same observations can be made about the Empire of Japan. I'm sure Imperial Japanese soldiers earnestly believed their subjugation of China and other mainland powers was just, but that doesn't alter it's depravity.

There's value to be had in honestly recognizing that if I was born in Japan or Germany during the 1920s I'd probably have turned out just like the people I'm criticizing. But we also have to have conviction in what is good and what is evil.

> doesn't alter it's depravity.

The holocaust was bad, but it's going to be a hard stretch to justify what we did in Japan because of the depravity of their soldiers in China.

I have a conviction that that was an evil, evil, evil thing to do.

An order of magnitude fewer people died in the atomic bombings than did in the conventional land advance into Germany. Japan had a larger population and more mountainous terrain suitable for defense. Japan intended to expend tens of millions of its own people's lives in operation Ketsugō.

Between letting the Empire of Japan continue to exist without reform, a conventional invasion, and the atomic bombings the last option was by far the most humane.

I don't know what you're going with this line of discussion, but this over-emphasis on the atomic bombings are a common talking point among Japanese apologists and nationalists to try and depict Japan as a victim rather than an aggressor. The atomic bombings, combined, claimed fewer lives than several individual conventional strategic bombing campaigns in both Germany and Japan.

> Japan intended to expend tens of millions of its own people's lives in operation Ketsugō.

Intended to expend tens of millions of its people's lives if the United States tried to take and occupy Japan.

Most wars don't end with the other country being occupied or its government being overthrown.

Right that's what the US, France, and Britain did with Germany in WWI. And we know how that turned out. Fortunately, the Allied powers did not intend to repeat the mistake of settling for peace without reforming hostile powers into states that would coexist peacefully in the long term.

> Most wars don't end with the other country being occupied or its government being overthrown.

I thought that is precisely how most wars end.

Reporting bias.

> I thought that is precisely how most wars end.

Well I don't know what to tell you, it usually isn't.

Your disclaimer doesn't excuse your painful ignorance about the scale of atrocities of the nazi regime. If you are trying to put any kind of moral equivalence between the attack on Hiroshima and the murderous war waged by the nazis you are either a very stupid or a very vile human being.

The holocaust doesn't justify hiroshima and nagasaki - they will forever be a stain on our nation's history.

Fun fact - the atomic bombings were not the most deadly bombings that the US carried out against Japan.

Yes, we also killed over a million in North Korean fire bombing (and wonder why they despise us). Doesn't make dropping the atomic bomb on cities any less heinous.

Of course one atrocity doesn't justify another. I'm attacking your wavering statements about the moral standing of the two sides in WWII. There is simply no fathomable comparison.

I made no such claim, you are responding to someone else.

Are you aware of what Iran has been up to in the region? Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, Iraq, Gaza..

Yes and that's exactly my point... Iran building a nuke to counter Israel is not morally equivalent to the US building a nuke to counter the axis powers.

Ask a Palestinian, their view will be different.

If you believe that majority (just become more people are influenced through media with the same view as yours) can force a political view onto a minority, then I think we need a more serious talk on whether or not you might find a better life in China or Iran.

I am serious here. Do not think I intend to mock you. Rule by majority is not what I approve for myself to live in US.

Well, who did the things first to destabilize the region?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com