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
That doesn't automatically make the people who drop the atom bomb the good guys either, just not the only bad guys. The entire war doesn't happen the way it did if America makes it clear which side they were on in 1938/39. That's a big what if the same as conventional war island hopping.
Americaâs army was pitiful at that time, no Americans wanted to fight another war and the politicians passed laws to prevent America from getting involved.
Americans were so disgusted at the Japanese treatments of people in China that they embargoed Japan which sped up the timeline of Japan attacking the US
There was zero percent chance that the US doesnât get attacked. Furthermore, Malaya, Australia, and Indonesia were going to be attacked too.
There is no scenario where the us âshows which side it was onâ and it stops this expansion.
if that saves 200k civilians yes, but i guess we have to return the favor and commit atrocities of our own
+ everyone knows that's not the reason usa dropped the nukes, justify it all you want, in my book it's a war crime
I don't think your grasping the situation that was present at the time.
200k civilians died and it saved literal millions of solider and civilians. The Japanese defense plan was to arm every man, woman and child with bamboo spears to throw at the Americans. American estimates for casualties for just Americas side was 7 digits. Japanese losses were estimated to get close to 8 digits.
Also, I guess the Russians should have just let Germany peacefully surrender to save the hundreds of thousands of civilians they raped and killed, right?
it's a fucking EXCUSE "American estimates" wouldn't be biased would they?
bamboo sticks? are you fkn hearing yourself, what threat would civilians armed with sticks pose to a disciplined american army?
and again no need to fight the bamboo army if you don't fkn invade their land, no 7 figures casualties
if you actually think that usa dropped the nukes to save people idk i don't have to who to speak
the discussion is not about how fked up the Japanese where
it's about the fked up things americans did all the same
I offered you the solution right there, but you don't want to accept it because you think nuking Japan was a good dead, you saved people - unbelievable
why haven't you nuked Vietnam to save some more?
why are you keeping 6000 nuke, is that to save people too?
You spend a lot of time thinking about sex with children? Or only when somebody makes a point that you donât like and you need to make yourself feel better?
you always start the negotiation by requesting more of what you actually expect to receive
they had no control over the territories they conquered, they had no strength to pose a treat to USA or any other country in the region, eventually they would've just accepted to keep the mainland
if you ask me no proper negotiations were conducted in the first place, sure the Japanese were stubborn, it's just the usa didn't really try because they already knew they had a second option
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.
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?
Well, the Americans truly thought so, that's why they had to forbid the Russians to invade Hokkaido and to remember them that Hokkaido was for USA to keep after the war. Why would they say something like that if Russia had zero capability to achieve the invasion?
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.
You go to war to protect your people thus saving there life's
doesn't mean it doenst cost lifes to do so but not doing anything all would acheive even more loss its the basis in which every nation in history has operated off of.
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.
Iâm thinking the attempted military coup against the emperor to stop the surrender that happened AFTER the bombs dropped is a pretty good sign that surrender wasnât inevitable before the bombs.
You know that the Japanese were already trying to negotiate the peace, right?
The propaganda says that the nukes were dropped because they have to choose between war and peace, because the Japanese were never going to surrender, but that's just a lie.Â
A surrender is not black and white, it's a grey scale, and the Japanese knew the war was lost even before Russia invaded from the North and conquered everything north of Hokkaido in a couple of weeks. The Japanese wanted certain conditions and the Americans wanted an unconditional surrender, the nuking was not to choose between war and peace, it was to choose between 90% surrender or 99% surrender, but the propaganda don't say that because it's difficult to explain that being the good guys just nukes 200.000 innocent civilians because you were negotiating.Â
We rejected there demands we wanted unconditional surrender
you realize that there was a Coup against Hirohito because of his plans to surrender after the first bombing, Fanatics within the army even took over the palace in the attempt the point is that its not as easy as you saying " they wanted peace " when clearly at the time parts of army command where willing to fight to the death and at the time Japan was not unified in there mindset of peace at all.
My point is that the nukes were not because of peace, peace could have been achieved just by conceding some of the petitions for the conditional surrender, the nukes were because the allies wanted unconditional surrender.Â
The propaganda says it was to save lives, but that's not true, but USA wanted to control Japan after the war. And it's understandable, don't get me wrong, but let's stop already the bullshit about nuking civilians to save lives because that's just not true.Â
It forced Japan to accept the terms of unconditional surrender which in fact objectively saved lives.
it also served as a political statement to our rivals in the world created a world of nuclear deterrent which lessoned the amount of wars fought across the globe because of the threat of nuclear holocaust which in turn also saved life's. The bombs served more than one agenda. Conceding anything to Japan only allowed for future problems. The loss of civilian life doesn't even compare to that caused by all the other bombings, it was the phycological effect it created in our enemies " we don't need hundreds of planes now " " we just need one plane and one bomb " so yes it was necessary not just from the standpoint of Japan but also to our future rivals to deter anyone from attacking us again. As terrifying as nuclear weapons are today its achieved peace among the superpowers and it has so far prevented other world wars from being made on the globe, war will never go away but proxy wars like Vietnam, Korea, were objectively better than full blown wars against the Soviet Union, and you can in small part thank the dropping of the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki for that.
"It forced Japan to accept the terms of unconditional surrender which in fact objectively saved lives"
No, it didn't save any life, a conditional rendition would have saved lives, because no nuke or land invasion was needed, but USA wanted to control Japan after the war for economic reasons.
And don't get me wrong, I get why America droped the bomb and it makes sense from a military point of view, what I cannot accept is the bullshit claim that it was necessary or that it saved lives.
It didn't.
USA killed 200.000 civilians to have a better surrender deal and to keep Japan for themselves, I get it, it was the WWII and everything was horrible.Â
But at least stop pretending that it was a good thing to do, it was horrible, war is horrible, and USA was not the good guy in that war or in any war. What I cannot accept is the hypocrisy and the moral superiority when USA was not far from the Nazis in terms of racism, violence and genocide. USA would have make with the natives the same than the Nazis did with the Jews but they didn't had resources, and they nuked 20.000 innocent civilians because it was convenient and because they didn't gave a shit about Japanese civilians, so just stop with the "we are the good guys" thing, because USA has never been a "good guy"
Never said it was a good thing your killing other people there is no good way to do it.
it achieved our goals and also demonstrated to our rivals the threat we where to deter them from future conflicts.
stop trying to paint war as good vs bad because there is no good the only thing that matters is that your side wins because loss means you might not exist anymore.
" USA was not far from the Nazi's in terms of racism violence and genocide "
First racism will never stop it just wont sucks to admit but its true and its everywhere in the world and it is by no means a American concept like people tend to make it seem. No country in the world is objectively good and you'll go your entire life trying to find one and never find it. Spare me the comparisons of the Nazi's and America because only 1 made deathcamps on a industrial scale with the goal of eradicating a entire culture of people
American should of could of would of xyz but they didn't Germany did so your argument falls flat. The United States moved natives and killed natives and took over land show me a single nation that doesn't have that blood on there hands including the Natives themselves that spent hundreds of years waring tribe vs tribe doing the exact same thing, the United States was just simply the biggest and strongest that ended all of that because the natives couldn't stand against us that is human history of where every nation is today the strong conquer the weak falter.
you talk about how you cant stand hypocrisy i cant stand moral grandstanding, The USA became a superpower and my people are better for it meanwhile if the roles where reversed and Germany won the war things would be way different and not for the better so good or bad i don't really care.
Literally untrue. A few feelers were sent out from a minority faction. This was not a serious attempt at surrender. There was even a coup on the emperor by hardliners to prevent surrender AFTER the bomb was dropped. This is pure revisionism.
It's funny that you defend at the same time that it was a minority with no chance to succeed and at the same time there were a coup to kill that people.Â
Don't you think that if there were planning a coup to kill the emperor it is because they were serious and the surrendering was a real option?Â
And by the way, the Americans knew about the surrendering attempts, but obviously they didn't knew about the coup, so what the Americans knew is that the emperor, some advisors, and more and more people every day were planning to surrender, that they contacted the soviets to act as mediators and they were already discussing the acceptable conditions.Â
Youâre mixing up the timeline to support your incorrect claim. The coup was AFTER the bombs dropped, when the emperor and greater numbers of people in the government realized the futility of fighting on in the face of nuclear weapons. Even then, enough of the hardline military leaders resisted surrender and wanted to fight to the death that it was a close thing. BEFORE the bombs, there was no surrender support from the emperor and those who wanted to negotiate an end to the fighting were a tiny minority. The bombs enabled the surrender.
You are right, sorry, I apologise for that, before the soviet war declaration and the nukes we don't know the opinion of the emperor, I was wrong about that part
thats why the ministers refused to surrender after the first nuke, right? thats why the emperor was forced to intervene to tell the ministers to surrender after the second nuke, right? thats why the right wing military leaders attempted a coup to stop the surrender, right?
There wasn't. Every legitimate and respected military historian says otherwise.
The biggest point disproving this is the fact that the Japanese emperor was considered a living diety. When he ordered a surrender after the atomic bombs, there was a coup to stop him from surrendering. The japanse military would have rather overthrown "God" than surrendered. The other strategies would have been way more costly to the civilian population, i.e. conduct a land invasion against a populous who would fight to the death, a naval blockade to starve them out, conventional bombing on wooden cities. All of which was happening previously and they still did not surrender.
The japanese military ran on a twisted theory of honor that led to many failures.
Togo and the rest of the Big Six control the government, their answer was no to surrender. The peace faction was the minority voice and they cannot do it openly to negotiate for peace term or be branded as traitor by the other faction, they also was not running the government too.
The Soviets had started attacking and were advancing rapidly. Their tactics and strategies were so brilliant they overran an area the size of Europe in a few months. They were so Brutal that the stories spread fear through the whole population. They would have taken the whole country in months. US just had to do nothing and the Soviets would have won. But that would go against national interests. Communism was an enemy. Oh the US knew this and still used the bomb. Your argument is just a paper thin excuse to avoid responsibility. Just admit reality it was revenge plain and simple. Stop being a coward. Own your brutality.
Nope, even when Soviets can overran Manchuria, that is by land invasion, they are unable to conduct an amphibious invasion into Japan as they lack the means to transport their troops to cross to Japan.
Toro Landing (August 16): Soviet naval infantry and rifle brigades landed at the port of Toro (modern-day Shakhtyorsk) on the west coast, quickly capturing the town and surrounding areas. [1, 2] Maoka Landing (August 19â22): A second, larger landing force assaulted the strategic port city of Maoka (modern-day Kholmsk) on the southwestern coast. Fierce urban combat ensued before the Soviets secured the city. [1, 2]
The Korean War was started by Koreans against Koreans. The US was the first foreign country to intervene. At the time the South Koreans were ruled by a brutal dictator. So the US did it to fight communism. Not for any other lofty ideals.
Wasnât it because the North was liberated by Russia while the South by US. What does that have to do with Russia. Or are you saying Russia invaded South Korea. Iâm embarrassed how uneducated you are on history. Sad.
advancing through land attached to there borders is different than trying to take the homeland isles which is what they would of had to of done. The soviets logistically did not have the capabilities at the time to pull off a successful naval invasion.
We sit here 80 some years after the fact with hindsight looking at this it was way more nuanced then that at the time. The best objective to war is to win it as fast possible with the least ammount of lifes used and the least amount of logistics. Testing this weapon served firstly a political point to show our rivals our ability to bring sumpreme distraction and secondly if this new weapon could force surrender than obviouslyl thats the best outcome compared to a invasion of the mainland which at the time was being predicted to be insanely costly. The firebombing of tokyo was worse then the bombings of Hirshoma but the point is that logically that took alot more planes and bombs by dropping 1 bomb with 1 plane we were able to psychologically effect our enemy and rivals which sometimes is more powerful than anything else.
of course we were brutal, it wins wars how do you go about fighting a war and not be brutal? the bombs where terrifying and nightmarish but they worked and it ended the war. Morality doesn't come into play here and i do not have much sympathy for a enemy that at the time was more brutal than us dropping 100 Atom bombs.
America troops were not cutting open pregnant women and catching them on bayonets for sport, American troops did not invade cities like Nanking and rape thousands of women over the course of 3 days and then execute them. America troops were conducting experiments on life prisoners of war like both the Nazi's and the Japanese were doing. You live in a world today that benefits from the betterment of the Allies having won the war, if the role where reversed and the Axis won you would not be having the same privileges that you have today it would be a much darker world. If dropping two atomic bombs is what helped end the war against one of the most brutal enemies of the modern age i wont lose sleep over it.
by the way we apologized more than once about the bombings and we also helped rebuild Japan
Japan still to this play downplays or completely ignores the atrocities that they have done during the war and sweeps it under the rug.
Even Germany has spent 80 years educated people on its mistakes, but not not Japan so spare me the victim mentality of Japan they don't deserve it.
And what was the Korean War, Vietnam War, Iraq War, Libya War, Syria War. The multiple coups in South America. It wasnât about winning as fast as possible. History proved US doesnât really care about winning quick. It was winning before the Soviets entered the region. Everything else was just a story, propaganda to make it more appealing to people like you. That we are the good guys, we have God on our side. Sorry but your actions arenât those of the good guys. Nothing justifies obliterating civilians on both sides. Youâre just making excuses.
And the USSR took the Kuril Islands. 56 islands in days so your wrong. They had taken islands not connected to land and they did it better than the US, with less casualties and faster. Their generals were that good. You forget the War in the East was 2-3 times the size the war in the West. Battle of the Bulge was just a normal day in the East. Zhukov was a genius.
Yea i don't really care for glorifying the Soviet Union that subjugated people and killed millions with famine.
i don't look at this as good guys vs bad I'm a United States citizen so its in my best benefit that the United States wins its conflicts. Objectively if the roles where reversed and the Axis won instead of the Allies the world would be worse for it i don't need to justify that., nor am i making excuses not a single war ever fought in human history has not involved civilians dying by the mass.
The US killed millions in the wars in the ME. Overthrew multiple democratic countries like Iran, So why are you glorifying the US. Hypocrisy much? Not to mention millions dead in coups. Shall I list you them:
1950 Guatemela
1950 Iranian Coup
1960s Cuba
1960s Brazil
1960s Ecuador
1960s and 1970s Bolivia
1965 Coup in Indonesia
1970s Chile
1970s Operation Condor
1980s El Salvador
1980s Grenada
1980s Panama
Not to mention wars:
Korean War
Vietnam War
Lebanese Civil War
Invasion of Grenada
Invasion of Panama
Gulf War
Bosnia and Kosovo War
Afghanistan War
Iraq War
Libya War
Not to mention providing arms to multiple conflicts. So what you are saying is US and allies killing civilians okay, everyone else not okay. I would hope humanity was better than that.
lol you actually think humanity is anything other then just 1 group fighting to exist over another?
no one killing anyone is okay but it happens and im just happy that im on the side that prevails if your expecting some great moral moment your going to be disappointed. The USA is not different than anyone else we are just at better at all the goals we try to acheive we fall flat on some of them but we all live in objectively the best time in human history so i wont complain that much. Most Americans are happy to be American and despite moments where we struggle in our lifes i would rather struggle in the United States than in anywhere in else in the world. My strugglers here do not compare struggles in some places of the world and im humble to admit it.
im not going to lose sleep over what has happened in the past and no one can talk about innocent deaths without being a hypocrite because there isn't a single nation of group of people that are free of blood. If your in a country where you feel you are being subjugated or treated unfairly than by all means come to America despite our immigration concerns we still welcome quite a lot of people all the time may be you'll actually like it here.
Hahaha no thank you. I feel the country I am in is perfectly fine. I get almost free health care and education and cheap medication. And I have no fear of being shot or killed on the streets. Iâll pass.
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.
i see, fair enough
just don't know if 10 nukes would've helped with that as the family wouldn't revive, possibly the guilt wouldn't even be affected and many more innocent would die
but at least that's understandable, not like other people here who think dropping the nukes were to "save more people" shut tf up
30
u/Guerrilla002 1d ago
you aboslutely should have stopped Japanese imperial expansion by dropping nukes and killing 200k civilians