The Instigator
chit0wn
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
thett3
Con (against)
Winning
23 Points

America bombing Japan is comparable to Nazi death camps

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 7 votes the winner is...
thett3
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/29/2011 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,652 times Debate No: 18540
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (7)

 

chit0wn

Pro

I will be arguing for the idea that the motives behind bombing Japan at the end of WWII are identical to the motives of Hitler exterminating Jews in the death camps.

Round 1 is acceptance.
No rules for what is posted in Rounds 2-4.
thett3

Con

I accept your challenge.
Debate Round No. 1
chit0wn

Pro

Thanks for accepting.

The United States bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end WWII.
Hitler created death camps in WWII to hold and then kill Jews.

My argument is about the relationship between the killers and the people they killed.
In the war, the U.S. was against Japan. The Japanese had killed many Americans and vice-versa. Note these people weren't just Japanese, they were part of the Japanese army. The U.S. wanted Japan to surrender, so they decided to drop an atomic bomb on both Hiroshima and Nagasaki, two cities containing civilians that had nothing to do with the war. It was effective, and the Japanese surrendered.

When Hitler was growing up, he was an art student. He didn't do so well, and a professor kicked him out for having poor art work. His mother also died at around the same time. This is when Hitler developed a hatred for the Jews. He believed the professor that kicked him out was Jewish, and the doctor who was taking care of his mother was Jewish. Hitler blamed him for her death. [1] Later, when Hitler became dictator of Germany, he believed he could rid the world of its problems if he killed the Jews. Note that the Jews he killed weren't the ones looking after his mother, and they weren't the professor who kicked him out of art school.

Now, to my point. Hitler killed people that had nothing to do with his problems. He assigned what a few Jews did to him to the entire religion. The U.S. also killed people that had nothing to do with its problem. The people that were in those Japanese cities just happened to be part of the same country the Japanese army was part of, just like the Jews Hitler killed happened to be from the same religion . The U.S. assigned everything the Japanese government and army did to the U.S. to the Japanese people.

The Japanese the U.S. bombed didn't do anything to the U.S., just as the Jews Hitler killed didn't do anything to him.

[1] http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk...
thett3

Con

Thanks Pro. I would like to remind everyone that it is my burden to show how my opponents comparison is fallacious, not necessarily to show that the bombings were justified. My Opponent must show that the motivation for bombing Japan was genocide.

If we wish to draw a comparison between motivations the most logical things to look at are actions. Since no one (to my knowledge) who was involved in the decision to drop the Atomic bombs still lives, what was the factual motivation is something that is lost to history. We can only ascertain, to the best of our abilities, what the motivation was. As to the resolution, I negate.

The first thing that needs discussion in this comparison is the events leading up to the actions. When the Nazi's went to kill the Jews, they did it out of a desire to wipe out the Jews from the face of the Earth. The Americans dropped the Atomic bombs after 4 long and deadly years of warfare. Immediately we can see a distinction between the two. While the bombings themselves remain incredibly controversial, it should be obvious that the United States was not motivated by a desire to exterminate the Japanese. If they were, my question would be: why didn't they? Consider that the United States was at the time the only Nuclear armed power. After the bombings we had no more nuclear weapons, but what with the industrial might of the United States along with the economic and military hegemony of the Allies during the closing of the Second World War proliferation and construction of the materials required to create more bombs would be swift. If the United States wanted to visit Nuclear annihilation on Japan than that is exactly what it would have done.

Consider the terms of the Japanese surrender[1] (offered BEFORE the Nuclear bombs were dropped).

  • "We do not intend that the Japanese shall be enslaved as a race or destroyed as a nation, ... The Japanese Government shall remove all obstacles to the revival and strengthening of democratic tendencies among the Japanese people. Freedom of speech, of religion, and of thought, as well as respect for the fundamental human rights shall be established."
  • "Japan shall be permitted to maintain such industries as will sustain her economy and permit the exaction of just reparations in kind, ... Japanese participation in world trade relations shall be permitted."
  • "The occupying forces of the Allies shall be withdrawn from Japan as soon as these objectives have been accomplished and there has been established, in accordance with the freely expressed will of the Japanese people, a peacefully inclined and responsible government." (Emphasis mine)
If the U.S. was motivated by a desire to destroy the Japanese than why would they offer such generous terms? Why would they have allowed the Japanese to continue their existence as a pure race? And WHY would they build Japan into a democratic nation of economic might that still exists today? These are all questions my Opponent must answer.

My Opponent draws a comparison, stating "The U.S. also killed people that had nothing to do with its problem. The people that were in those Japanese cities just happened to be part of the same country the Japanese army was part of"

Unfortunately, this totally misses the point. It is true that the U.S. killied civilians (as did the Germans, Japanese, Italians, British, French, Russians, and everyone else involved in WWII) however it is incredibly erroneous to claim that they were not a part of our problem. In a total war (like WWII) a government devotes all of its resources to fighting the war. The entire country is fixtated on the war, it seeps into every aspect of life. Those civilians were a part of the enemies war machine. Just because someone isn't wearing a uniform doesn't mean they aren't fighting a war.

Were the bombings justified? That is an incredibly debateable question. However, did the bombings happen out of a desire to end the Japanese as a race? Absolutely not.

Recall that it is my Oponents burden to show us that the motivation was the same. The motivation for killing the Jews was to end them as a race. The motivation for the atomic bombings was to end a war. Thus, you negate.


1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
chit0wn

Pro

I wasn't trying to argue that their reasoning was the same. I was trying to argue that the people that were killed had nothing to do with the killers' problems. The killers blamed the group that the problem causers were part of.
thett3

Con

"I will be arguing for the idea that the motives behind bombing Japan at the end of WWII are identical to the motives of Hitler exterminating Jews in the death camps."

Motive: " something that causes a person to act in a certain way, do a certain thing, etc.; incentive"[1]

"I wasn't trying to argue that their reasoning was the same"

?????????? Then what oh you trying to argue for?

" I was trying to argue that the people that were killed had nothing to do with the killers' problems"

Oh. Already proven false in my second round, dropped, and therefore conceded to. Please vote Con.

1. http://dictionary.reference.com...
Debate Round No. 3
chit0wn

Pro

I messed up by using the word motivation. I used the wrong word, dumbest move. That was my fault entirely. You got that argument.

But back to what I meant to argue.

You said,
"' I was trying to argue that the people that were killed had nothing to do with the killers' problems'
Oh. Already proven false in my second round, dropped, and therefore conceded to."

You actually didn't prove it false by saying,
"In a total war (like WWII) a government devotes all of its resources to fighting the war. The entire country is fixtated on the war, it seeps into every aspect of life. Those civilians were a part of the enemies war machine. Just because someone isn't wearing a uniform doesn't mean they aren't fighting a war."

Total wars don't exist. It's impossible to have every man, woman, and child working to help the Japanese win the war.
"Those civilians were a part of the enemies war machine."
In order for that statement to be true, you would have to prove that every person that died from the bombings was working to help the Japanese win. Every kid? The infants that were bombed were working against us? Every single man and woman? Senior citizens? There must have been many people killed that weren't working against the U.S.

Just as every Jew Hitler killed wasn't trying to screw Hitler, not every Japanese the U.S. killed was trying to fight the U.S.
thett3

Con

Pro's round one:

" I will be arguing for the idea that the motives behind bombing Japan at the end of WWII are identical to the motives of Hitler exterminating Jews in the death camps."

Pro's round four:

"I messed up by using the word motivation. I used the wrong word, dumbest move. That was my fault entirely. You got that argument."

By his own framework he has lost the debate.

Anyway

"Total wars don't exist. It's impossible to have every man, woman, and child working to help the Japanese win the war."

Really? Total war[1]- " Total war is a war in which a belligerent engages in the complete mobilization of fully available resources and population."

Examples of total war[1]: " The Second World War can be considered the quintessential total war of modernity. The level of national mobilization of resources on all sides of the conflict, the battlespace being contested, the scale of the armies, navies, and air forces raised through conscription, the active targeting of civilians (and civilian property), the general disregard for collateral damage, and the unrestricted aims of the belligerents marked total war on an unprecedented and unsurpassed, multicontinental scale."


Vote Con.

"In order for that statement to be true, you would have to prove that every person that died from the bombings was working to help the Japanese win. "

Not really, I would just need to show a compelling military interest in taking out those cities. Which I have.

Please Vote Con.

thett3

1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by blackhawk1331 5 years ago
blackhawk1331
I can't believe that con didnt point out the fact that we warned the cities we were going to drop the bombs on them. He also failed to point out that the Japanese were averaging about 99% casualty rates on some islands. (I could be wrong on the exact number) I am also disappointed that con didn't contest pro's reasons for Hitler's antisemitism. 2 of Hitler's best friends were jewish, but Hitler spent a few years in, I believe, Venice which was the capital of anti semitism at the time. Also, con didn't point out that most of Germany was dissatisfied with the Jews.
Posted by socialpinko 5 years ago
socialpinko
The motives were different obviously, the devastating and unjustified effects were what were comparable.
Posted by chit0wn 5 years ago
chit0wn
By my framework, I did lose, but man, you didn't provide strong evidence for the cities being part of a "total war."
Posted by chit0wn 5 years ago
chit0wn
"As for the Jews, well, I can tell you quite frankly.." LOL
Posted by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
Hmmm...The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagaski was, if I am correct, a response to the Japanese's refusal to surrender after the Potsdam Declaration ["We (the President of the United States, the President of the National Government of the Republic of China, and the Prime Minister of Great Britain) call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces, and to provide proper and adequate assurances of their good faith in such action. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction."]
http://www.ndl.go.jp...

While the concentration camps were undertaken, partially, to allow the Final Solution to take place...Even Hans Frank referred, on December 16, 1941, at a meeting of the officials of the General Government, to this:

"As for the Jews, well, I can tell you quite frankly that one way or another we have to put an end to them. The Führer once put it this way: if the combined forces of Judaism should again succeed in unleashing a world war, that would mean the end of the Jews in Europe. ...I urge you: Stand together with me ... on this idea at least: Save your sympathy for the German people alone. Don't waste it on anyone else in the world, ... I would therefore be guided by the basic expectation that they are going to disappear. They have to be gotten rid of."
^ Gerlach, Christian (December 1998). "The Wannsee Conference, the Fate of German Jews, and Hitler's Decision in Principle to Exterminate All European Jews". The Journal of Modern History 70 (4): 790. doi:10.1086/235167. Reprinted in Bartov, Omer, ed (2000). The Holocaust: Origins, Implementation, Aftermath. London: Routledge. pp. 106–140. ISBN 0-415-15035-3.
Posted by thett3 5 years ago
thett3
I wasn't aware that that was an actual fact
Posted by dinokiller 5 years ago
dinokiller
lmao'ing at no one pointing out that Hitler himself was a jew.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by eltigrey 5 years ago
eltigrey
chit0wnthett3Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pretty strait foward who won
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
chit0wnthett3Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: "Total wars don't exist"? Pro should brush up on history. That point was enough to show the difference in who the victims were, and Con's citation of postdam showed the difference in motivation. I don't think the Atomic Bombing was justified but Con clearly showed that it can't be compared to the Nazi camps.
Vote Placed by blackhawk1331 5 years ago
blackhawk1331
chit0wnthett3Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Need I explain?
Vote Placed by airmax1227 5 years ago
airmax1227
chit0wnthett3Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro failed to prove that the comparison between 'Nazi death camps' and 'America bombing Japan' had anything more in common than death. Any further comparable factor asserted by pro (US bombing is similarly motivated by genocide etc) was refuted by Pro. Pro's 2nd round conceded the argument with a further unproven resolution: 'that the ppl killed were not part of the killers problem'. Con refuted this while Pro still failed to assert his BOP
Vote Placed by Mestari 5 years ago
Mestari
chit0wnthett3Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Agreed. They were not identical, which hurt the pro. Had he simply left his burden during the debate as comparable, it would have been much better for him.
Vote Placed by t-man 5 years ago
t-man
chit0wnthett3Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: same as below
Vote Placed by seraine 5 years ago
seraine
chit0wnthett3Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: "I will be arguing for the idea that the motives behind bombing Japan at the end of WWII are identical to the motives of Hitler exterminating Jews in the death camps." This lost the debate for Pro. Though the motives were both comparable in a very broad sense, they definitely weren't anything near identical.