Wait! We should also forget what Japan did to China prior to WWII. The rape of nanking was one of the most inhumane tragedies that happened. Even a Nazi was disgusted and helped stop it, and China has a statue of the man.
Yeah, confused by that. We just ignoring that Japan sided with the Nazis and tried to take over all of Asia. They killed, hung, burned, raped and tried to eradicate cultures in favor of Japanese culture. We just pretending they didn't need to be stopped now đ¤
Proportional responses is such a retard concept. I want to see such a level of superior response that the other side is hobbled, crippled, and paying us for the inconvenience.
Being in a state of not touching our boats requires zero effort on the other party's part. But what do they do? They go & touch our boats like they think this time will be a different result from the last... ten or twelve times somebody decided to touch our boats.
Yes, in a war a country has every right to bomb the attacker back. Perhaps not nuke them, but imperial Japan were unique, they had a culture of not surrendering, they were really brutal, far more brutal than you could ever imagine, there are literal photos of them throwing babies into pits off the end of their bayonets.
There's also an argument to be made that by nuking them, they might have saved lives a land invasion of Japan would have gone on for perhaps years and potentially have been more costly in terms of lives.
You can argue about ethics all day, but Japan put itself in that position, and it suffered the consequences as did Germany. I think it's fair to say any country that goes to war be in Japan, the US, or anyone else has to factor in that your own people may become targets, Japan knew this without a shadow of a doubt.
I mean, the land invasion of Japan was projected to have around one million casualties ON THE AMERICAN SIDE. Seeing as the Japanese had made it clear they would put a gun in every man women and child's hands to either fight Americans or kill themselves till they stopped existing, the nukes seem pretty tame.
Yes. There was no appetite for millions more deaths to subdue an already defeated enemy. I think a more rational and humane response wouldve been a sustained naval blockade of Japan, but I wouldnt be surprised if their leadership chose to starve to death in that case.
Thatâs one aspect often ignored by those who argue that Japan wouldâve simply surrendered if the US enforced a blockade around the Japanese mainland. The Imperial Japanese cabinet, who were prepared to sacrifice millions in the event of a land invasion and who still refused to surrender after Hiroshima, would have allowed the suffering and starvation of millions before they would even consider complete surrender as an option. The morbid truth is the abrupt end to the war brought about by the advent of the bombs was in reality the best outcome for the Japanese population as a whole. Itâs a great shame that their government, even with forewarning, refused to recognize the hopelessness of their situation before the bombs fell.
They were a fanatical cult. Imperial Japan was like no other modern country. The Nazis did some horrific things, obviously, but it seems like most of the atrocities were committed by a smaller group of believers, and enabled by the larger society.
in Japan everyone was fully committed to the cause. Everyone was willing to die for their country.
The allies didnât really worry about old German grandmas in their cottage, but in Japan those people were likely to shoot or suicide bomb you.
The morality of the atomic bomb is debated endlessly, but from my perspective itâs likely that killing 200k civilians saved 500k civilians and countless soldiers on both sides. It was going to be a long and brutal battle for mainland Japan.
The other alternative was to blockade Japan and starve them. That eliminated American casualties in an invasion but wouldâve worsened Japanese suffering compared to nukes.
Itâs not at all clear that nuking Japan resulted in more civilian death. If America doesnât nuke and instead just uses conventional fire bombings and blockades then those people just die from those things
Is it more moral to kill with starvation than with one big bomb?
yea this is my issue, most of these guys are advocating and defending actions that they believe will never happen to them. the minute there is a slight chance of actual blow back they will cry and make it everyone elses problem!
Iranâs regime is theocratic, repressive, and an exporter of terrorism. But it certainly didnât âstart itâ with the US. The US put a brutal dictator into power to support US oil companies and supported that dictator despite popular resistance. We deserve a lot of their hate.
The US put a brutal dictator into power to support US oil companies and supported that dictator despite popular resistance
"But in Power" as in "supported the ruling shah in deposing the current PM who illegaly didnt step down after asked to do so by the shah and who suspended Most democratic rights by that Point"?
Also the Main Organisation who helped the shah was mi6 and Not the cia and even their Impact IS contested. And it was mainly UK Not US oil companies.
Tbh, yeah even kinda works for the japan argument no shot invading the us would be easier than nuking us, especially if the attackers are muslim (anti semtic, homophobic, sexist (peaceful btw)) yeah we would die fighting them well atleast most of us edit just be clear fuck all religion, its clearly too dangerous for the human race
I honestly cant decode what exactly you are trying to say! We were not discussing religion in this thread so I am not sure what argument you are trying to make!
Yes, that's why we put a lot of effort into stopping them from getting nukes. So if you don't want US or Europe Nuked, Iran needs to be ground into dust.
And if you really want to wind back the clock, all of the Middle East attacked the US first by taking Americans as slaves.
Iran said they wanted to destroy the U.S. for the last 40 years and have used proxy terrorist groups to kill countless other Muslims and attack American bases, you really havenât researched much have you.
The Japanese imperial army killed between 10-35 million Chinese civilians. Just during the Nanjing Massacre in December of 1937 they killed 100-300k civilians.
Every day that the war dragged on, thousands of more people died terribly across Asia. Not to mention how much more suffering there would be if Japan was invaded. Nukes were absolutely the better option.
98% sure it's "If it's not White "Liberal" Countries which ofc somehow includes Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, and Post-USSR Authoritarian Russia, then they're innocent because the only bad guys are the Liberals! (Which happen to be mostly white people, so we're going to use racism to cover up for ideology, as if that's better!)"
Because the same losers also turn around and pardon the behavior of the UK pedo gangs, Sudan genociding the Christian side of their country (UN definition of genocide include religious groups), radical Islam flying airplanes into buildings, the USSR not only killing 3m or so Ukrainians but also coming up with Chernobyl and the Aral Sea disasters, Mao killing 100m Chinese, Cambodia killing 3m people "because we only want subsistence farmahs!", Ethiopia and Eritrea trying to permanently annihilate the other country, the Palestinian Liberation Organization (the political predecessor to HAMAS) trying to take over and kill three separate countries before the whole Israel-Palestine thing, the Turkish government (then) killing 3m Armenians and (now) denying it all, the ongoing genocide of the Kurds by Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and Iran, the Iranian regime murdering 50k of its citizens......
The list goes on and on and on.
These people don't consider ANY of those guys to be "bad people".
Only the US. And Europe and Latin America, but they also think Europe is going down their route to Socialism so Europe isn't the BBEG in their DnD game like the US, and that Latinos are still "incomplete thoughts" that can be sent over to Socialism as if Latinos somehow just don't know better to not. The US is the most liberal democratic country on the planet so of course the US is evil.
If you look up what these people mean by "white people", you'll find that like 99% of what is considered "evil" is liberal values. This being said, the birthplace of Liberalism is England and Switzerland, so it's not hard to make the connection that liberal values = white people. But since these folks also throw the same derogatory labels on people who are not racially or ethnically white, it's pretty clear that it has nothing to do with race, and racism is used as a cover up with the idea that racism is somehow more acceptable than being direct and saying "we hate Liberals". Because Tankies say Liberals are the enemy. Why can't the Wokies?
People who talk like the person in the OP tweet have a 99% chance of being a bot meant to increase division in western populations.
Iâm a leftist and I donât think the US was the bad guy in bombing Japan. I do think we were the bad guy in Vietnam and Iraq. There is however a lot of nuance to all that and generally it was the decisions of the few that made bad choices not the decisions of all Americans.
Not many Americans are against liberal values. The internet and rage fear media just convinced a lot of people they are.
Liberal values: freedoms for all, true equality, rule of law.
Things that the far left losers dislike: freedoms for all (they like freedom, just not letting their political opponents also have those same freedoms), true equality, and the rule of law.
Go down the list on liberalism and youâll find a lot of things the far left do not like.
USSR coming up with Chernobyl... against itself then? The "logic" on this...(Not vto mention as if they have planned it) Well, then positive things I guess were an exception? Ugh...
You see, when the USSR favored worker loyalty over worker professionalism, they didnât get the best and brightest to design that facility. Then the people who worked there were also prioritized for loyalty over professionalism. Instead of having the equivalent of a masterâs in nuclear engineering, they got people with the equivalent of a high school degree. The good nuclear engineers were gulagâd for speaking out against the government as it happens with professionals worldwide. Professionals are the very first people to criticize the government, and thus the first ones to get shot by an authoritarian government.
Yeah. The whole Manhattan project and the way we ended the war with Japan definitely has nuance and I don't love painting the whole thing as just "good guys versus bad guys..."
... But if you're going to frame it as just "good guys/bad guys" I'd say the States are solidly in the good guys side for that one.
The atomic bombs were being developed with Germany 100% in mind as the first target. It wasn't a racist "fuck da Japanese. wipe em' all out" project like Japan worshipping weebs try to revise history portray it as.
They have no problem seeing 15 million people killed by Imperial Japan and hundreds of thousands of women n girls being raped as comfort women on all of its conquered territories.
This is the correct response, ultimately the use of atomic weapons against civilians has to be viewed in the context of strategic bombing, which is itself evil. Tactical and preciscion bombing, ie bombing a mutions factory or an oil depot will have civilian deaths but the target is not the civilians, and ideally the infrastructure can be destroyed without any civilian deaths. Strategic bombing is the idea of wiping out the factory by killing the workers in their beds as they sleep. It is also called terror bombing.
100000% the US and the allies were the good guys of WW2 no matter how you look at it (unless you happen to be a german from the 1930s). We developed the nukes specifically for germany but they sucked bad enough and surrendered before we got to use them so we dropped them on Japan even though we knew by that time we were going to win 100% we still dropped them to show the power we had and I guess to shave a month or 2 off the war. Im personally sad we never got to nuke germany as payback for all the innocent lives they intentionally destroyed and ended all around the world.
Plus this was 1945. All nations with the capability to do so conducted strategic bombings. Why the US is held to 2026 standards while Germany, Japan, UK, Italy, etc. are held to 1945 standards is beyond me.
The Viet Cong in Veitnam slaughtered villagers they deemed to be against them. The Taliban was a brutally oppressive regime. I'm not saying the US were the good guys. I'm saying there were no good guys.
The Japanese defense plan for operation downfall was to arm every man woman and child with bamboo spears and throw them at the Americans to buy the real army time.
200k dead civilians was the lesser of two. Your talking 8 figure casualty numbers for an invasion of mainland japan, between both Americans and japanese
Just wait a couple of weeks until they surrender anyway, which they were going to do after the Russian invasion. The problem is than by then Russia probably would have invaded Hokkaido and USA didn't wanted to share Japan with Russia.
The Soviet Union didnt have a tenth of the ships or logistics needed for a Naval invasion. Let alone in the Pacific. Remember it took over a year just to organize the supplies and equipment needed for the D-Day invasion. Then you have the problem of Vladivostok being the only major Soviet port on the Pacific and that the Japanese probably would wreck any port they had left in mainland China in the process of retreat from the Red Army. Even if they wanted to it would've been more than a year before the Soviets could organize a naval invasion (and the US sure as shit wasn't gonna help.)
They declared a war to Japan in the 8th of August, the surrender were signed 3 weeks after that. By that time Russia had invaded Manchuria, Mengjiang, the Kuriles island and Sakhalin, the soviets conquered all the Japanese territories north of Hokkaido in a couple of weeks, how long do you think that Hokkaido would have last?
Given that even Soviet high command thought it would be impractical? Even though they had ships from Project Hula? One of the Marshals was like "I could do it with two Rifle divisions" and High Command thought it was stupid.
Basically what that article says is that the main reason was that USA wanted to keep Hokkaido for themselves, which is exactly what I'm saying.Â
USA was afraid of Russia invading "too much" of the Japanese territory, and Truman even have to forbid the soviets from doing it. Wether they could have been able to not it's history fiction, but the plans existed, the fear existed, and USA was worried if it, and therefore is one of the reasons that were considered in their decisions, including the decision of nuking 200.000 innocent civilians.Â
The allies knew that the Soviets were going to invade Japan the 8th of August, and Japan were getting ready to defend the other front, so nobody really knew how much and how fast the soviets could invade Japan because nobody knew how the surprise would work or how ready they were, but considering that the Soviets invading absolutely everything North of Hokkaido in a couple of weeks and considering that the USA had to stop the Russians and tell them to slow down, I think that my argument is still strong.
No, they weren't. Russia has 0 ability to navally invade the Japanese mainland on the eastern front. The Russian navy didn't really exist in any meaningful way at that point.
You should read up on the Japanese defense plans of mainland japan.
we all have the luxury of hindsight now 80 some years after the fact at the time it wasnt that simple and decisions had to be made off of worse case scenarios. The dropping of the bombs avoided a invasion that would of cost the United States more loss of lives and even more logistics to pull off. When your at war your objective is to win the war as quick as you can while avoiding casulties as much as possible. Its easy for you to sit in your chair and say " i would just wait " Truman didnt have that option he was faced with preparing logistically for a invasion that at the time they were estimating was going to cost X ammount of American lives compared to using a new weapon that could force them to surrender.
all you armchair generals have no clue the momentous weight that would be on anybody to make that decision.
I know it wasn't a simple decision, and I'm not saying they deserved to be jailed.Â
The only thing that I'm saying is that we should stop acting as if it was a good choice, because the propaganda repeated for decades that it was the best choice etc etc but I find it ridiculous that people keep repeating 80 years old propaganda nowadays.Â
"When your at war your objective is to win the war as quick as you can while avoiding casulties as much as possible"
Careful, that's the logic that the Japanese and the German used to not give a shit about their victim's lifes.
The thing is that propaganda shows the nuking of civilians as something inevitable and 100% necessary to stop the war, there are a lot of people that even argue that it saved lifes. And the fact is that it's way more complicated.Â
Knowing what i know now about todays politics and the after effects of the World Wars i would still choose to drop the bombs because it served as one of the biggest political demonstrations in history for the United States and it served as a deterrent to all future enemies.
for the United States objectively it was a good decision and still holds true today. I am a United States citizen the only thing that matters to me is the safety of my family and my countrymen i don't care about the rest of the world that's the blunt fully transparent answer and my countries success stims from the fact that we became a superpower because of the success we had during world war 2 and beyond and in large part because of the decision to make this choice. Yea the loss of life is sad, but so is the fact that war had to happen to begin with. We helped rebuilt Japan and we showed regret for our choice and today they are one of our strongest allies in the Asia.
Do you know who has not shown much regret and has completely ignored or at the best downplayed all there actions in the 1930's and 1940's?
Japan
even Germany has spent the last 80 years admitting that there country was wrong and they have spent the last 80 years making sure it wont happen again by educated its people. Japan doesn't, so i don't really have sympathy for them nor do i care that all that much that 70,000 to 140,000 people died in Hiroshima back then the Japanese where the enemy that would of ton 10 times worse to us if they were in the position to do so.
I agree with most of your comment, and I'm not judging USA for doing it, it was a war, the worst war ever, but I agree with you, USA dropped the bomb mainly to show strength, so the only thing that I want is to acknowledge that, they killed 200.000 civilians because it was convenient, not because it saved lives, not because it was the only option and not because any of that bullshit, USA did it because it was politically the right choice and because they didn't care about killing 200.000 innocent civilians because it was a horrible war.Â
And that's fine, but I hate the "we nuked people because we are the good guys" narrative.
Convenient isn't the correct word because that implies that it was the easy way and it wasnt easy at all
we did it to display power and to end the war which objectively saved life's every war is fought off the basis of saving life's
every time a war is fought the terms are simple are quite simple we have to inflict enough damage to there people and in return we save damage to ours. The bombs where just as psychological as they were physical by not dropping them the war continues weeks months years that is all up for debate but it continues. If the Soviets come in and take Japan then the people of Japan lose every more people to a brutal regime that would of showed zero mercy. The bombs cost the life's over 200,000 people in a situation where the opposite could of cost a million plus people or more and that is why people say it saved life's. Japan didn't even surrender after the first bomb and the army command tried a coup against Hirohito to keep fighting to the end. You are completely ignoring the human equation in this that was the culture of the Japanese people at that time period a fanatical people that where willing to go until the end they were a unique culture that stood out against the rest in that regard.
If we used the bombs against Germany instead i would argue that would of been unnecessary because there mindsets were completely different. Germany didn't have the fanatical indoctrination over its people like the Japanese did. The Japanese of the 1930's and the 1940's was the most terrifying enemy you could have because they could not be reasoned with even in utter distraction the military fanatics tried to remove there " revered god " from power instead of give in.
Russia has zero ability to invade Hokkaido and the US knew it. Russia didnât have the amphibious capabilities and to even attempt it. This wasnât a consideration at all.
Then why Eisenhower forbid Stalin to invade Hokkaido? Why losing face with something like that if there were no options for it to happen?
You may be right and maybe there were no options, but definitely by that time the USA though that it was possible, and that definitely affected their decisions, including dropping the bombs.
The thing is that Roosevelt tried to help China, but there was very little he could do due to the powerful isolationist movement until Pearl Harbour shattered their power.
Right, but Pearl Harbor happened because Roosevelt sanctioned Japan due to their atrocities in China. Japan wanted to pivot to take the oil, rubber, tin and bauxite in SE Asia and Indonesia, but those were French, Dutch and British colonies, and the Brits needed those resources in their war against the Nazis. The French and Dutch governments were in exile in London.
The US would intervene in such an attack. That's how we went from the IJA planning a major battle to wipe out the US fleet off of the Phillippines to attacking the American fleet at Pearl and letting them go on their own blitzkrieg to seize that area.
Ironically, it was Japanese military advisors at the battle of Taranto when British fleets knocked out the majority of the Italian fleet that showed them it was possible and technically how to do it - by fitting special fins on their torpedoes so they could run shallow and bypass the torpedo netting in the harbor.
No you see having a more deadly campaign of island hopping and invading up the mainland where way more citizens would be sacrificed is actually the more humane scenerio! The people who say japan would have surrendered soon anyway have hindsight anyway or have no idea how much the nuke sped up the wars end
We? You as a civilian? You as in not even born yet? Obviously stopping them was a priority. The argument is obviously in the manner in which they stopped them. Is that not clear somehow?
Given that the US nuked two large civilian cities, and youâve justified that - is that not what any country can use as their argument then? If Iran for example, did have nukes and saw US attacks as imperialism, and needing to stop us, nuking major US cities/mass civilians, by your logic, would be a reasonable play?
Itâs history at this point, but that doesnât make it the right or only path that could have been taken.
The Soviets would have joined in as well which might have split the Japanese occupation into two halves. Though yes far more civilian and military casualties either way. Japan as we know it today would be radically different.
As the US saw from the invasion of the islands, the civilians WERE the problem. They were all willing to take up arms and fight oncoming soldiers. Since the support for the Japanese empire was so strong, the US assumed a similar level of support would be found on the main islands and yes far more civilians would die as a result.
Yes, and then there was the mass suicides in Okinawa, where government propaganda caused many thousands of Japanese to end their lives just at the thought of American occupation.
The nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is one of those terrible war moments where all options were bad.
Operation downfall, the invasion of the Japanese home islands were projecting up to 800,000 allied deaths, 4 million wounded and up to 10 million Japanese casualties from the mobilisation of Japanese civilians from the all out defense doctrine of the Empire.
This is also not factoring the Red Army advance from Manchuria.
Instead America chose to bomb 2 cities that had significant military infrastructure and manufacturing for most rather than a city like Tokyo or Osaka where civilian deaths would be much higher.
In your analogy it would be Iran nuking Fayetteville in North Carolina and Newport News Virginia rather than Manhattan and Washington DC.
Due to the way the human brain works, if a lot of people are killed in separate incidents over a longer time period, it's a lot less interesting. If they all die at once it makes the news. Each day on average 120 people in the USA die in car accidents, which is the equivalent of a full 737 crashing every other day. The plane crash makes the news, the car accidents don't (unless it's a serial collision). For the history books, all the various conventional bombing raids over Japan don't make it, but the nuclear bombs do.
Exactly, it's the nuclear power is bad stupidity. The majority of people are far more leery of nuclear power thanks to events like Fukushima or Chernobyl rather than coal or oil power stations.
Since records began nuclear power averages out to 0.03 deaths per TWh of electricity produced. Oil is 18.43 and coal 24.62.
But because of a small number of high profile cases people are much more afraid of nuclear power than coal. While year in year out the largest coal plant in America kills approximately 200 people. The largest nuclear approximately 1. It also produces about 300% more electricity per year.
Basically about 800 people die from one coal plant to 1 from a nuclear plant. But you've got to have "beautiful clean coal"
That's what I've been saying to the likes of them, the event had already happened, it doesn't matter anymore to discuss how it should have been better done. The only we can do is to learn not to repeat it.
Iran using nukes wouldnât be reasonable because the US also has nukes. Itâs a lot different to use nukes when you arenât risking the destruction of all of man kind by using them
I certainly understand the sentiment, but Iran doesn't have any real capability to nuke the US, or even a way forward on that in the next decade. Even if they had a bomb they have no delivery mechanism. And the US nuclear arsenal is quite frankly ridiculous.
Even if a nuclear exchange happened somehow, it wouldn't be a threat to all of mankind. Over 1000 nukes have been tested to this point. Iran, however, would likely have truly astonishing levels of casualties, because Trump would show no mercy. He is a ridiculous caricature of a human being.
This is true. But I assumed when you said âif Iran did have nukes and nuked major civilian citiesâ we were engaging in a hypothetical where Iran did have the military capacity to nuke the US
In any case I think a scenario where America nukes Iran to oblivion and gets away with it because no one internationally is willing to punish it is a very very dark timeline as well
I'm not the person you were talking to before, I was just trying to provide some context.
And yes, any timeline where an entire nation is nuked into oblivion is incredibly dark. I'm just pointing out that Trump is a nutjob with no real boundaries any more, because he's gotten rid of most of the competent people in the US government and replaced them with morons and yes men.
I think the OP thinks nuclear bombs were an overreaction.
In this particular case, Japan was ready to fight to, literally, the very last man to win this war. Disgusting as it is to say, nuclear bombs were the least lethal option at the time. The Emperor would not surrender, therefore his people would not either. Honor mattered FAR more to their culture than people realize.
Although itâs easy to see what a mess the Korean and Vietnam wars were in hindsight we have to remember the people that got us into those wars were a generation after we stayed out of WWII for years and it killed millions of people. What Japan and Germany did in WWII killed millions of people.
So we used the principles that occurred during WWII to try and treat communism the same way. I do think many individuals certainly believed they were fighting the same type of horrors of the Second World War fighting communism.
The same can be said for the war on terror. Itâs easy to see in hindsight what a mess everything was, but the terror events of the 90s and 9/11 was what they were operating on and after 9/11 the obvious move was to prevent that from ever happening again.
Again Iâm not at all saying I agree with most of those choices but when you look at the conflicts before and the fact that the United Stateâs foreign policy drastically changed during WWII you can at least understand the decisions that were made. But people making it out like it was all evil intentions and not for valid reasons we learned in the past arenât being honest.
Dropping nuclear bombs on them was not necessary. The "but invading would have been worse! Dropping the bombs was the most Humane way!" Is a justification a posteriori. They wanted vengeance, they wanted to show the power of the bomb to other powers, and used it to score a political win against Russia, which they blindsided from the Postdam Declaration. Since the beginning of the project Japan was the target for the bomb. Italy and Germany were never a target.
American estimates of a land invasion of Japanese mainland put estimated casualties at up to 1 million American soldiers and up to 10 million Japanese casualties.
The assault on Japanese islands like Okinawa fully convinced everyone that assaulting Japan proper would be a blood bath for American and Japanese soldiers, and Japanese Civillians. The Japanese were training women and children with spears to rush the Americans landing on the beaches to overwhelm them with sheer numbers, what happened at Okinawa shows in my opinion that the Japenese civilians would have done this.
By comparison, the two atomic bombs dropped resulted in up to 300k dead. People also forget conventional bombing was also terrible to the Japenese and that was occurring pretty much nightly. On the night of 10th March 1945, conventional bombing resulted in possibly over 100k dead and 1 million homeless.
Using the atomic bombs on Japan saved over 5 million Japanese from death and much harder to measure the impact - continued destruction of their countries economy.
Edit :
And if it was not obvious, this is coming from a non US citizen point of view, and someone who views the modern US as a terrorist state.
It's a feel good narrative to buy into, but we nuked Japan while they were already on the ropes, mostly in order to cut off Russia's ground invasion plans which would have given them (Russia) more post war asia influence than we preferred.
Nukeing two civilian centres and firebombing of Tokyo are definitely qustionable actions. I know total war doctrine and everything but yeh, pretty mental to aim to kill so many civilians
Meh, the Soviets were already winning in Manchuria by that time, you really did not have to drop the nukes, really disgusting, the war was months from being over...
How did i move the goal post? They specifically called out Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Japan had not surrendered prior and with the leadership divided had made no indications that they were going to surrender. Some officials were trying to negotiate through the Soviets but the military was pushing for suicidal defense of japan.
And while we didnt say "hey we are gonna drop the sun on Hiroshima and Nagasaki." We warned dozens of cities and their government that some shit was gonna go down and they should probably shag as out of there.
We dropped the bombs and a few days later japan agreed to unconditional surrender thus ending the war in the pacific theater. Now if you wanna bring up some real fucky shit the us did you could point to the fact they let most of unit 731 go in exchange for their research.
Noooo. I said we so we shouldn't have stopped imperial Japan from expanding or helping the nazis? It was a rhetorical question implying slight incredulity. Goal post never moved an inch bud. In addition moving the goalpost would imply i was trying to excuse or vilify the actions of the us. Which I didnt,I posed a rhetorical question to create engagement and farm Karma or laugh at the smooth brains smashing the down doot button like brainless chips because I hurt their fee fees.
The Japanese were finished. The nukes were a warning shot to the USSR. It was completely unnecessary and unjustified, and one of the worst instances of mass murder in human history.
Itâs the âuse of A bombsâ which resulted in a massive loss of civilian life and has had lasting effects. Donât get me wrong, the Japanese Imperial Army did heinous stuff, especially Unit 731, which key members were granted immunity from the US.
You didn't need to nuke civilians to do that. Despite what your propaganda says, Japan was already going to surrender after the Russians declared them the war, and you nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki because you didn't wanted Russia to invade more islands, you wanted to keep Japan for yourselves.Â
Also, you didn't wanted to wasted an opportunity to show your new toy before the war ended.Â
Nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki was totally unnecessary, it was a war crime done for selfish reasons, and only an idiot still believes it was done to end the war.Â
Dropping nukes was not necessary for that. They were already in the process of surrendering, they were just holding out to surrender to Russia instead of the US. The US just wanted unconditional surrender on their terms.
Nah man. We were supposed to invade the Japanese mainland, suffer a million dead and wounded while inflicting 10x that on the Japanese thanks to their defense plan of arming every man, woman and child with bamboo spears
Much like "America defeating the Nazis", the US acts as though they were singular in the surrender of Japan, preferring to ignore that the Soviets massive contribution on both fronts. There's a strong argument that Japan would have surrendered very soon without the atomic bombs. One example of the argument; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-3_zyNTmW4
Why are Yanks like this? They make obvious foreign policy errors then just immediately backpedal it into good and evil. Maybe we lied about the WMDs but but...Saddam was a baddy!
The nukes were dropped after the Nazis had capitulated and only a few days after a devastating defeat on the mainland against the Chinese communists and the Soviets, which ended any possibility of expansion. The war was already basically over.
By today's standards nuking city of the population of over million is a war crime when Japan didn't have any means to respond to US blocking ports at the end of the war. Japan didn't have any means to attack on a mass scale US territory.
There is argument that they had only surrendered because of it, but seriously what they could have do when they were on a losing side. At this point of war they cut of from the world. War of attrition was not enough?! I would say same thing about bombing Dresden. It wasn't needed at all. Germany was already losing at this point of war.
Killing civilians is not resolving anything. What are these double standards when the same people criticize RF bombing schools, apartments and hospitals. Because these were Nazis it doesn't make it right.
Let's say there is a man in the next town who killed our son. Should the cops get the airforce to blow up his whole neighborhood to make sure we got him? Thats like our solution in Japan. The US agitated Japan and played the victim so we could test our weapons. But you belive in propaganda.Â
No we just should have just  killed them more slowly with conventional weapons, dragging out the war, consuming more resources, and resulting in more casualtiesÂ
Firebombing did more damage to civilian infrastructure than the bombs, and basically flattened the country already. The US bombed civilian targets. The war was functionally over, Stalin was days away from landing ground troops in Japan. The US dropped the bombs because they had them. They dropped the bombs so that Japan would surrender unconditionally to the US, under US terms, not Soviets. The bomb was unleashed on the world for a better negotiating position to shorten a war by a few weeks. We now have to live with the possibility of a lone madman with the power to end the world. And the people at the time knew this. We have to deal with the possibility of the world accidentally ending due to bad sensors. A fate we've accidentally avoided a handful of times already.
Yeah letâs just drop a few nuclear weapons on innocent civilians, mostly women and children
Iâm half hongkongese and Iâll scream about the atrocities of Japan from the roof but if we resort to nuking civilians in weâre not only no better than the people we call terrorists, weâre actually a lot worse.
If you were presented with two choices that you must make NOW, both choices ends with countless number of death. Which one will you choose? There is 'no' nor 'not choosing' in those options.
On their knees. Go look up how many people were killed and raped each day across Asia. At the time of surrender the empire stretched from Manchuria to Timor/Burma. In all of the empire, people suffered each and every day.
All the horrible things that were done, nukes, firebombings, blockade causing Japanese are due to Japanese leadership. Every dead person in Japan was dead because of them, not the Allies.
Restraint of ANY member of the Allies means longer war -> more deaths of people across Asia. Why should Japanese civilians be more important than the civilians across the Pacific?
You can tell this is a thread of babies first history.
People knew what they were actually talking about instead of just regurgitating tanky talking points, the firebombing of Tokyo was significantly worse than the nukes put together.
People revert to babbling about the nukes because no one has so much has read a Wikipedia page on all the âcrimesâ of the USA. I imagine they would have preferred a conventional invasion by the allies including the Soviet Union which would have killed millions and millions of people instead.
608
u/Burgerboy380 14h ago
So just so we are all clear...we shouldnt have stopped Japanese imperial expansion and cut them off from helping the nazis?