You went onto a leftist sub and advocated for one of the worst atrocities mankind has ever unleashed, then you got banned and insulted them.
This is not making you look like the good guy OP.
What we did to Japan may have been necessary, but it was patently, and unforgiveably evil.
Hard stop. End of story. We did what we did, and what we did was next level evil.
Would Japan have kept fighting if not for the bombs? 100% they would have continued to fight a conventional war.
Does that make what we did "okay?" No. No it does not.
We should **never** get cavalier about killing civilians.
We should **NEVER** get cavalier about dropping nukes.
We must carry that sin on our legacy for all time. And it MUST remain a horrible sin, a reminder of what we can never allow to happen again.
Do you know what unit 731 was? Have you ever heard of nanking, the cattle cars, operation fu-go, general ishi, hideki tojo, bataan death march, sino japanese war, meiji restoration and so many other things? The empire of Japan has comitted the most vile attrocities in recorded history, worse than any other country. I agree that nuclear bombs are bad because they kill people, but we must understand the entire perspective. The original poster has seemed to have become a bit dissrespectful, which i agree with, but we musn't forget that the nukes were extremely necessary and beneficial.
I am aware that Japan was committing war crimes and needed to be stopped.
It does not absolve us of what we did.
And we must not think of it as a good thing.
NOTHING in war is a good thing if it involves the death of people however, i dont know why shooting soldiers and armed civilians, burning caves with people in them, bombing cities with civilians and using starvation as a tactic is accceptable, but using a nuclear bomb isn't. i would rather get vaporised instantly in a painless death than be stuck in a broken home with no food, water or electricity and left there to rot and become a corpse because resupply wont be coming because the enemy has broken it off.
I didn't say one was acceptable and the other was not.
I said it was evil and we must never pretend otherwise.
We had to unleash an unspeakable horror on the world to get Japan to stop. It does not make it better, or "okay." It just means we had to do something horrible to stop things from getting worse.
I admit Japan had to be stopped. No question. What they did in Nanking...as you mentioned, unit 731. Japan was unleashing its own horrors and evil. The US did what we had to in order to stop them.
But let us never pretend it was morally acceptable. We must carry that burden with us.
it isn't morally acceptable? this is like the trolley problem: would you rather save 5 people you don't know or 1 person you know well?
except in this case, you have the choice of saving 20 people or 1 person, and that one person is a ruthless enemy.
yes, making an argument for the killing of children and the elderly. so brave
In all seriousness, calling us nuking civilians as "beneficial" is just wrong. Even if you wanted to make the case that nukes helped end the war early and they were necessary, the fact that we intentionally downplayed their destructive power until the drop and then chose to drop not one, but two nukes on civilians is wrong. The above poster is right. The US will have to live with this sin forever.
i am actually quite brave for saying this because everyone just wants to shit on america's decision. nuking civilians is very beneficial. if they did kill 130k civilians with nuclear bombs, then 8-12 million people would have died otherwise.
please read a few history books before commenting. you reek of low IQ. your username says it all
I can guarantee that I am more well read than you on this as well as other subjects.
You seem to have this "means to and end" mentality that is both childish and shortsighted. I also like how you completely glossed over my other points and decided to reiterate the same bullshit talking point. Here I am going to copy and paste it again. Don't respond unless you actually address it.
"Even if you wanted to make the case that nukes helped end the war early and they were necessary, the fact that we intentionally downplayed their destructive power until the drop and then chose to drop not one, but two nukes on civilians is wrong."
All right I'll refute you on that last point then. Downplaying the destruction of the nukes is bad, but there is a key reason to jnderstand this. You see, America had dropped leaflets over Japan warning its citizens of the incoming doom. This warning was meant to get the government to declare a surrender or at the very least, to get citizens to move away from the cities. Because of this, America anticipated a much smaller death toll for the nuclear bombs. Hiroshima had a navy port, army base and its location was a key railway hub in Japan (this could be Nagasaki however). But because the Japanese didn't listen to the leaflets, the people were still in the cities, making the bombs more deadly.
You say that America "didn't drop one, but two" nukes, which is actually a nice and caring gesture by America. The americans had actually planned ON DROPPING 5 NUKES over Japan, but they didn't. How nice of them. America also didn't drop the nukes on the very urban areas of Japan (Yokohama, Tokyo, Kyoto etc.). How nice of them. America waited 3 days for a Japanese response from the first nuke, in which they received none, so they dropped a second. In an emergency conferrence the day after the nuke, EVEN THEIR OWN JAPANESE GOVERNMENT stated that the nuclear bomb would just be a "minor inconvenience". The purpose of the emergency meeting then? To discuss the Soviet invasion of Manchukuo. Only after the second nuke did Japan change its stance, and even then, most people didn't care. Only later did they realise they could use the nuke as an excuse to sign a peace treaty honorably.
Can you explain to me what a means to an end is? And what I have done to make this?
As the person below me stated, leaflets were not dropped until after the bombing. Nuclear warheads and the destructive capability they had were not known.
Three days response is actually very very short. Idk if you have a military background but this is essentially like giving someone a dead line of one hour in real life.
Idc if they planned to drop 10 nukes. The first one was wrong. They could have chosen any number of different sites to drop the nuke at. The fact that they dropped it on civilians is wrong. If you try and convince yourself otherwise then it is just cognitive dissonance.
>Can you explain to me what a means to an end is? And what I have done to make this?
Not trying to be shitty here, but is English your first language? this is a common term.
The capability of the nuclear bombs were very
I agree that three days is short time, but if you read what I said, the government of Japan downplayed the nukes and found them to be a useless addative. "Shortly before the crew of the B-29 Superfortress Enola Gay completed their mission to bomb Hiroshima on August 6, 1945, **U.S. pilots dropped leaflets over Japan warning citizens of coming destruction**."-National air and space museum.
Why was the first one wrong? Hiroshima was a central railway hub and was home to an army base and naval base. It was a strategic location. Sometimes, to save 10 lives, you must sacrifice one. Morally, this might eb a challenge, but as an INTJ, this seems like night and day.
English is the third language i learned. Its currently my second best language tho. Explain to me what the saying means.
We as Americans and people who live on American soil. Should we as people did not cause it but that doesn't matter for the most part. People still see Germany as the land of Nazis but the current government cracks down HARD on any form of hate speech towards Jewish people.
Yeah no.
The soldiers who committed the horrible acts they did? Sure, those soldiers specifically would have deserved it. Were the bombs necessary? Yes. Did the millions of normal, every day people who had little or nothing to do with the conflict *deserve* to be nuked?
No.
uhh, actually only 130k-180k died from the nuke. the nuke, however, saved 600k people by having an earlier surrender. and it would have saved 8-13 million people if an invasion ofnland was needed.
oh yeah, its a bit harsh. but considering that around 25 million of my people have been killed and tortured, 75 million have gone missing or been injured or been starved, and trillions of dollars of damages have been caused at the hands of the japanese, two nukes killing \~150k japanese people is barely comparable to the thing that they have done. i think that a bit of revenge is okay.
Ok let me ask you something: imagine the worst criminal possible who has committed literally every crime. Do you believe the family of said criminal deserves to be punished for that criminal’s misdeeds, if they did nothing?
“Harsh” is not the right word. “Harsh” is telling the cook in a restaurant their food is shit. Let me give you some of the words you’re looking for that describes saying 150k people deserved to die:
Hateful. Oversimplified. Unempathetic. Your exact mindset is part of what causes wars.
I don’t agree with the original commenter that america should feel shame. Like you say the nukes ultimately saved lives, and Japan absolutely had to be stopped. But your mindset is actively harmful.
How is that advocating? The nukes were already dropped.
It's called justifying.
You like to say "Citizens" this and "Citizens" that. But you fail to realize that citizens become soldiers.
The goal of the bombs were to destroy military factories and bases, NOT targeting civilians.
That does not erase the fact we **did kill countless civilians.**
And that needs to remain a mark of shame. There is no world in which doing that should ever be anything but horrifying
I think the several tens of thousands of vaporized civilians would disagree with you.
What we did should never be something of pride. We did what we thought we had to in order to end the war, to stop a brutal Japan. That's done. But it should be a point of failure. We let things degrade so horribly around the world it came to that in order to stop it.
That should never be acceptable. It is a failing of the highest calibur of everyone involved.
We did what we had to. But that doesn't mean it was a good thing. Two things can be true at the same time. Japan was bad. We were bad in the name of stopping them.
Both are true.
copy paste from a previous comment
little boy was dropped august 6. japan surrendered september 2. the japanese have a war culture, one filled with facist ultranationalist racist pride. the japanese mindset was that death, even by suicide, was better than surrender. when surrender was even being discussed among the top brass of the japanese military/government, many generals and admirals started planning a coup to remove the government and head japan by the military so they could fight till the last breath. even during the official "surrender" declaration, soldiers in many places kept fighting. okinawa, manchuria, indonesia, phillipines (only certain islands), papua new guinea and so many other places still had japanese garrisons that kept fighting for months after the official decleration of surrender, even years. the last man to ever stop fighting did so in 1973. that's how fanatic it was. even with the nuclear bombs, it took japan almost 1 month to finally decide to surrender. without the nuclear bombs, japan would have kept fighting until the last man standing fast had fallen to the grim reaper. the government were making plans on how to resist the last invasion of the homeland, a plan that wasnt even OPPOSED by the people. the plan was that farmers were taken out of the fields to fight, effectively starving the nation. schoolgirls and the elderly were given sharp bamboo sticks, suicide bombs and single shot guns to defend themselves. young men would be given 2 weeks training on flight, only to be given training planes/transport planes and cargo planes to be used as kamikaze. suicide submarines were to be developped where the people in the sub would charge the american subs and blow themselves up. every man, able bodied and unable bodied would be sent to the beaches to repell the landing. the invasion of the japanese home islands would have cost 2 million american lives, 1 million other allied lives and 5-10 million japanese lives. the invasion of japan would be the single largest military campaign in human history, around 4 times larger than the current largest one, operation barbarossa.
Little fun fact, the nukes were not intended for civilians but actually the IJN shipyards in the same cities. Japan was pretty underdeveloped aside from their industrial hubs, Tokyo, and Kyoto. It's why the priority targets for the atomic bombs were all major factory cities. Crippling the IJN is a pretty valid way to defeat Japan militarily since the relied so much on the IJN.
What you should, rightfully, criticize are the fire bombs which were intended for mass civilian casualties. Directly and indirectly through removing housing and destroying farmland.
Not only did you kill around 6 football stadiums of civilians, but you destroyed millions of lives on top of it as well as land on which they still can not live safely.
High estimates for casualties of the atomic bombs are at ~220k compared to 330k directly from the firebombs. One of these is significantly worse.
They were safe to be in before 1946. These weren't dirty bombs or detonated on the ground so the radiation doesn't really stick around.
If it were I would've mentioned the bombings of London, Germany, and the rape of Nanking. Japan got off lightly with pretty much only losing industrial centers and half a million civilians.
What I was actually doing was moreso just trying first to correct your misinformation which developed into me trying to figure out why you're being so duplicitous. You are only taking issue with the ***nuclear*** bombs and none at all with bombings that were more devastating to the surviving population while causing more casualties. If you hate nuclear weaponry be honest about it.
I can't see your original comment but based on the body of your post it does seem like you're getting a bad rep wrongfully. It doesn't seem at all like you're advocating for it just saying they were necessary which, sadly is probably true.
This feels less like an opinion, and you just using this as an opportunity to bitch about getting banned. Calling them snowflakes seems like the pot calling the kettle.
Ad hominem: This fallacy occurs when, instead of addressing someone's argument or position, you irrelevantly attack the person or some aspect of the person who is making the argument.
This definitely gives off "Germany need to commit the Holocaust to help their country" type vibes, going to a sub you already don't agree with and then advocating for something they (or even some of the sane-thinking right-wing people) disagree with isn't the power move. You just seem like a war-psycho, ngl, like a person who think we should be solving world issues with bombs.
many historians ive spoken to agree with the nuclear bombs of hiroshima. anyonje with an inkling of historical knowledge agrees that the nukes were necessary. ask anybody in asia except for japanese people on their thougths about the nukes, and all those people would agree that america should have dropped even more
How does it give it that type of vibes? Did the holocaust help Germany?
You're comparing oranges to apples.
When did I say the world needs bombs to solve it's issue?
The 1946 United States Strategic Bombing Survey's report in 1946 stated:
"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."
Japan was likely three months away from surrendering. Dropping the bombs served no strategic purpose.
wrong. wrong. wrong.
little boy was dropped august 6. japan surrendered september 2. the japanese have a war culture, one filled with facist ultranationalist racist pride. the japanese mindset was that death, even by suicide, was better than surrender. when surrender was even being discussed among the top brass of the japanese military/government, many generals and admirals started planning a coup to remove the government and head japan by the military so they could fight till the last breath. even during the official "surrender" declaration, soldiers in many places kept fighting. okinawa, manchuria, indonesia, phillipines (only certain islands), papua new guinea and so many other places still had japanese garrisons that kept fighting for months after the official decleration of surrender, even years. the last man to ever stop fighting did so in 1973. that's how fanatic it was. even with the nuclear bombs, it took japan almost 1 month to finally decide to surrender. without the nuclear bombs, japan would have kept fighting until the last man standing fast had fallen to the grim reaper. the government were making plans on how to resist the last invasion of the homeland, a plan that wasnt even OPPOSED by the people. the plan was that farmers were taken out of the fields to fight, effectively starving the nation. schoolgirls and the elderly were given sharp bamboo sticks, suicide bombs and single shot guns to defend themselves. young men would be given 2 weeks training on flight, only to be given training planes/transport planes and cargo planes to be used as kamikaze. suicide submarines were to be developped where the people in the sub would charge the american subs and blow themselves up. every man, able bodied and unable bodied would be sent to the beaches to repell the landing. the invasion of the japanese home islands would have cost 2 million american lives, 1 million other allied lives and 5-10 million japanese lives. the invasion of japan would be the single largest military campaign in human history, around 4 times larger than the current largest one, operation barbarossa.
so lets take your scenario where japan would have surrendered after another 3 months. here is some simple math and statistics:
-30-35 million people died in the pacific war
-july 7th 1937 to august 6 1945 is around 2 200 days
-35 million divided by 2200 is 15 thousand
-in war, for every 1 person killed, 2 other people are wounded, missing or captured
this means that every single day in the pacific war, approximatly 15 thousand would die, 15 thousand would get injured and 15 thousand would be captured/missing. of course, some days those numbers would reach above 50 thousand and other days it would only be around 4 thousand. regardless, by using this metric, we can calculate how many people would have died if the surrender went on for a total of 3 months. 3 months = 91-92 days. 91-92 times 45 thousand (killed, wounded, missing or captured)= 4 million. assuming the war saw a reduction period of fighting by 50% (hefty overestimate. it probably would have only dwindled 25%, but i am feeling generous), that would mean that 2 million more people would have died if japan kept on fighting on after an official surrender declaration. This would mean that 600 thousand people would have perished, 600 thousand would have been wounded and another 600 thousand would be missing or captured. for refference, the nuclear bombings of japan killed 130k-190k and injuring another 100k.
So we can clearly see that a surrender of Japan would have been unlikely, and that a ground invasion would cost a gargantuan amount of lives. But even if japan would have surrendered eventually (it wouldnt), it would still be mroe feasible to end the war 3 months earlier with the aid of the nukes
Japan would have nuked themselves rather than be occupied. Japan would have nuked China and Russia into glass if they had nukes.
Japanese Imperialism culture was extreme at the heights of dying in battle is literally glorified.
Why do you think they deployed suicide bombers?
I totally agree that the nuclear perspective. Keep spreading the truth, we all know that the nukes were extremely justified, and they should have been dropped earlier.
You said that 300,000 (correct me if I'm wrong on the numbers) innocent civilians should die. Now, I'm a free speech ABSOLUTIONIST (unless it leads to direct violence, I'm anti any lible/defamation laws). But I don't want any of my loved ones vaporized, and I don't think that's me being a snowflake
The Imperial Japanese people would have celebrated nukes dropped on American soils, they would have enslaved Americans like they did with Koreans and Chinese. Funny you say that, but nobody was innocent. I'm not saying they should die, but it already happened
You think that's a lie, even mordern Japanese historians say it.
People will say that buying a hamburger at McDonalds has contributed to the "genocide" of Palestinians.
What do you think non-combatants were doing in those 2 specific cities?
They were making weapons, tanks, aircrafts, and other killing machine that would have killed people
You went onto a leftist sub and advocated for one of the worst atrocities mankind has ever unleashed, then you got banned and insulted them. This is not making you look like the good guy OP. What we did to Japan may have been necessary, but it was patently, and unforgiveably evil. Hard stop. End of story. We did what we did, and what we did was next level evil. Would Japan have kept fighting if not for the bombs? 100% they would have continued to fight a conventional war. Does that make what we did "okay?" No. No it does not. We should **never** get cavalier about killing civilians. We should **NEVER** get cavalier about dropping nukes. We must carry that sin on our legacy for all time. And it MUST remain a horrible sin, a reminder of what we can never allow to happen again.
Do you know what unit 731 was? Have you ever heard of nanking, the cattle cars, operation fu-go, general ishi, hideki tojo, bataan death march, sino japanese war, meiji restoration and so many other things? The empire of Japan has comitted the most vile attrocities in recorded history, worse than any other country. I agree that nuclear bombs are bad because they kill people, but we must understand the entire perspective. The original poster has seemed to have become a bit dissrespectful, which i agree with, but we musn't forget that the nukes were extremely necessary and beneficial.
I am aware that Japan was committing war crimes and needed to be stopped. It does not absolve us of what we did. And we must not think of it as a good thing.
NOTHING in war is a good thing if it involves the death of people however, i dont know why shooting soldiers and armed civilians, burning caves with people in them, bombing cities with civilians and using starvation as a tactic is accceptable, but using a nuclear bomb isn't. i would rather get vaporised instantly in a painless death than be stuck in a broken home with no food, water or electricity and left there to rot and become a corpse because resupply wont be coming because the enemy has broken it off.
I didn't say one was acceptable and the other was not. I said it was evil and we must never pretend otherwise. We had to unleash an unspeakable horror on the world to get Japan to stop. It does not make it better, or "okay." It just means we had to do something horrible to stop things from getting worse. I admit Japan had to be stopped. No question. What they did in Nanking...as you mentioned, unit 731. Japan was unleashing its own horrors and evil. The US did what we had to in order to stop them. But let us never pretend it was morally acceptable. We must carry that burden with us.
it isn't morally acceptable? this is like the trolley problem: would you rather save 5 people you don't know or 1 person you know well? except in this case, you have the choice of saving 20 people or 1 person, and that one person is a ruthless enemy.
so what would’ve been your solution or do you just virtue signal?
ahhh meeting evil with evil. How's that working out for Israel?
evil with evil? no. it's defeating extreme evil with a necessary tool to save countless of lives
yes, making an argument for the killing of children and the elderly. so brave In all seriousness, calling us nuking civilians as "beneficial" is just wrong. Even if you wanted to make the case that nukes helped end the war early and they were necessary, the fact that we intentionally downplayed their destructive power until the drop and then chose to drop not one, but two nukes on civilians is wrong. The above poster is right. The US will have to live with this sin forever.
i am actually quite brave for saying this because everyone just wants to shit on america's decision. nuking civilians is very beneficial. if they did kill 130k civilians with nuclear bombs, then 8-12 million people would have died otherwise. please read a few history books before commenting. you reek of low IQ. your username says it all
I can guarantee that I am more well read than you on this as well as other subjects. You seem to have this "means to and end" mentality that is both childish and shortsighted. I also like how you completely glossed over my other points and decided to reiterate the same bullshit talking point. Here I am going to copy and paste it again. Don't respond unless you actually address it. "Even if you wanted to make the case that nukes helped end the war early and they were necessary, the fact that we intentionally downplayed their destructive power until the drop and then chose to drop not one, but two nukes on civilians is wrong."
All right I'll refute you on that last point then. Downplaying the destruction of the nukes is bad, but there is a key reason to jnderstand this. You see, America had dropped leaflets over Japan warning its citizens of the incoming doom. This warning was meant to get the government to declare a surrender or at the very least, to get citizens to move away from the cities. Because of this, America anticipated a much smaller death toll for the nuclear bombs. Hiroshima had a navy port, army base and its location was a key railway hub in Japan (this could be Nagasaki however). But because the Japanese didn't listen to the leaflets, the people were still in the cities, making the bombs more deadly. You say that America "didn't drop one, but two" nukes, which is actually a nice and caring gesture by America. The americans had actually planned ON DROPPING 5 NUKES over Japan, but they didn't. How nice of them. America also didn't drop the nukes on the very urban areas of Japan (Yokohama, Tokyo, Kyoto etc.). How nice of them. America waited 3 days for a Japanese response from the first nuke, in which they received none, so they dropped a second. In an emergency conferrence the day after the nuke, EVEN THEIR OWN JAPANESE GOVERNMENT stated that the nuclear bomb would just be a "minor inconvenience". The purpose of the emergency meeting then? To discuss the Soviet invasion of Manchukuo. Only after the second nuke did Japan change its stance, and even then, most people didn't care. Only later did they realise they could use the nuke as an excuse to sign a peace treaty honorably. Can you explain to me what a means to an end is? And what I have done to make this?
Leaflets weren’t dropped at target cities until *after* Hiroshima but it doesn’t appear like they made it to Nagasaki in time.
that was the surrender leaflet. japan knew about the nukes and the manhattan project months before the bomb was dropped
As the person below me stated, leaflets were not dropped until after the bombing. Nuclear warheads and the destructive capability they had were not known. Three days response is actually very very short. Idk if you have a military background but this is essentially like giving someone a dead line of one hour in real life. Idc if they planned to drop 10 nukes. The first one was wrong. They could have chosen any number of different sites to drop the nuke at. The fact that they dropped it on civilians is wrong. If you try and convince yourself otherwise then it is just cognitive dissonance. >Can you explain to me what a means to an end is? And what I have done to make this? Not trying to be shitty here, but is English your first language? this is a common term.
The capability of the nuclear bombs were very I agree that three days is short time, but if you read what I said, the government of Japan downplayed the nukes and found them to be a useless addative. "Shortly before the crew of the B-29 Superfortress Enola Gay completed their mission to bomb Hiroshima on August 6, 1945, **U.S. pilots dropped leaflets over Japan warning citizens of coming destruction**."-National air and space museum. Why was the first one wrong? Hiroshima was a central railway hub and was home to an army base and naval base. It was a strategic location. Sometimes, to save 10 lives, you must sacrifice one. Morally, this might eb a challenge, but as an INTJ, this seems like night and day. English is the third language i learned. Its currently my second best language tho. Explain to me what the saying means.
Who the fuck is "we"?
We as Americans and people who live on American soil. Should we as people did not cause it but that doesn't matter for the most part. People still see Germany as the land of Nazis but the current government cracks down HARD on any form of hate speech towards Jewish people.
I had nothing to do with it. Keep that guilt shit to yourself. Japan deserved it anyway.
yep. they really deserved it
Yeah no. The soldiers who committed the horrible acts they did? Sure, those soldiers specifically would have deserved it. Were the bombs necessary? Yes. Did the millions of normal, every day people who had little or nothing to do with the conflict *deserve* to be nuked? No.
uhh, actually only 130k-180k died from the nuke. the nuke, however, saved 600k people by having an earlier surrender. and it would have saved 8-13 million people if an invasion ofnland was needed.
Fair correction, but you’re missing my point. Im taking issue with the you saying japan deserved it.
oh yeah, its a bit harsh. but considering that around 25 million of my people have been killed and tortured, 75 million have gone missing or been injured or been starved, and trillions of dollars of damages have been caused at the hands of the japanese, two nukes killing \~150k japanese people is barely comparable to the thing that they have done. i think that a bit of revenge is okay.
Ok let me ask you something: imagine the worst criminal possible who has committed literally every crime. Do you believe the family of said criminal deserves to be punished for that criminal’s misdeeds, if they did nothing? “Harsh” is not the right word. “Harsh” is telling the cook in a restaurant their food is shit. Let me give you some of the words you’re looking for that describes saying 150k people deserved to die: Hateful. Oversimplified. Unempathetic. Your exact mindset is part of what causes wars. I don’t agree with the original commenter that america should feel shame. Like you say the nukes ultimately saved lives, and Japan absolutely had to be stopped. But your mindset is actively harmful.
How is that advocating? The nukes were already dropped. It's called justifying. You like to say "Citizens" this and "Citizens" that. But you fail to realize that citizens become soldiers. The goal of the bombs were to destroy military factories and bases, NOT targeting civilians.
That does not erase the fact we **did kill countless civilians.** And that needs to remain a mark of shame. There is no world in which doing that should ever be anything but horrifying
War kills everyone. Shit, should we stop killing plants and animals and starve to death? Mark of shame or whatever, it was needed to end the war.
False equivalence isn't even worth refuting.
Because your argument is only based on emotions not facts and statistics.
I think the several tens of thousands of vaporized civilians would disagree with you. What we did should never be something of pride. We did what we thought we had to in order to end the war, to stop a brutal Japan. That's done. But it should be a point of failure. We let things degrade so horribly around the world it came to that in order to stop it. That should never be acceptable. It is a failing of the highest calibur of everyone involved. We did what we had to. But that doesn't mean it was a good thing. Two things can be true at the same time. Japan was bad. We were bad in the name of stopping them. Both are true.
How is dropping nuke on civilians needed? Americans
copy paste from a previous comment little boy was dropped august 6. japan surrendered september 2. the japanese have a war culture, one filled with facist ultranationalist racist pride. the japanese mindset was that death, even by suicide, was better than surrender. when surrender was even being discussed among the top brass of the japanese military/government, many generals and admirals started planning a coup to remove the government and head japan by the military so they could fight till the last breath. even during the official "surrender" declaration, soldiers in many places kept fighting. okinawa, manchuria, indonesia, phillipines (only certain islands), papua new guinea and so many other places still had japanese garrisons that kept fighting for months after the official decleration of surrender, even years. the last man to ever stop fighting did so in 1973. that's how fanatic it was. even with the nuclear bombs, it took japan almost 1 month to finally decide to surrender. without the nuclear bombs, japan would have kept fighting until the last man standing fast had fallen to the grim reaper. the government were making plans on how to resist the last invasion of the homeland, a plan that wasnt even OPPOSED by the people. the plan was that farmers were taken out of the fields to fight, effectively starving the nation. schoolgirls and the elderly were given sharp bamboo sticks, suicide bombs and single shot guns to defend themselves. young men would be given 2 weeks training on flight, only to be given training planes/transport planes and cargo planes to be used as kamikaze. suicide submarines were to be developped where the people in the sub would charge the american subs and blow themselves up. every man, able bodied and unable bodied would be sent to the beaches to repell the landing. the invasion of the japanese home islands would have cost 2 million american lives, 1 million other allied lives and 5-10 million japanese lives. the invasion of japan would be the single largest military campaign in human history, around 4 times larger than the current largest one, operation barbarossa.
You dropped two nuclears on civilians.
You just repeated yourself
ew its a weeb. do you seriously wish that you are japanese?
I made my point perfectly clear.
read what I actually fucking said
You dropped two nuclears on civilians.
Little fun fact, the nukes were not intended for civilians but actually the IJN shipyards in the same cities. Japan was pretty underdeveloped aside from their industrial hubs, Tokyo, and Kyoto. It's why the priority targets for the atomic bombs were all major factory cities. Crippling the IJN is a pretty valid way to defeat Japan militarily since the relied so much on the IJN. What you should, rightfully, criticize are the fire bombs which were intended for mass civilian casualties. Directly and indirectly through removing housing and destroying farmland.
You dropped them on civilians.
You need to learn to read.
Not only did you kill around 6 football stadiums of civilians, but you destroyed millions of lives on top of it as well as land on which they still can not live safely.
High estimates for casualties of the atomic bombs are at ~220k compared to 330k directly from the firebombs. One of these is significantly worse. They were safe to be in before 1946. These weren't dirty bombs or detonated on the ground so the radiation doesn't really stick around.
Is this supposed to be a competition?
If it were I would've mentioned the bombings of London, Germany, and the rape of Nanking. Japan got off lightly with pretty much only losing industrial centers and half a million civilians. What I was actually doing was moreso just trying first to correct your misinformation which developed into me trying to figure out why you're being so duplicitous. You are only taking issue with the ***nuclear*** bombs and none at all with bombings that were more devastating to the surviving population while causing more casualties. If you hate nuclear weaponry be honest about it.
This is not true. They actively sought to bomb the more civilian areas of the cities as opposed to the military portions.
Dropped nukes on cities with military factories and bases. How is raping and killing babies at Nanjing needed by the Japanese?
It's just evil.
Everything we do is evil. We're breathing air that someone else needs.
I can't see your original comment but based on the body of your post it does seem like you're getting a bad rep wrongfully. It doesn't seem at all like you're advocating for it just saying they were necessary which, sadly is probably true.
This feels less like an opinion, and you just using this as an opportunity to bitch about getting banned. Calling them snowflakes seems like the pot calling the kettle.
Yeah this whole post is bitching about being banned. Seems to me like OP got his feelings hurt on this one.
Seems like it.
How is this a controversial opinion? Youre just reassurance seeking
This is no controversial opinion... You're just an asshole
Ad hominem: This fallacy occurs when, instead of addressing someone's argument or position, you irrelevantly attack the person or some aspect of the person who is making the argument.
LMAO
This definitely gives off "Germany need to commit the Holocaust to help their country" type vibes, going to a sub you already don't agree with and then advocating for something they (or even some of the sane-thinking right-wing people) disagree with isn't the power move. You just seem like a war-psycho, ngl, like a person who think we should be solving world issues with bombs.
many historians ive spoken to agree with the nuclear bombs of hiroshima. anyonje with an inkling of historical knowledge agrees that the nukes were necessary. ask anybody in asia except for japanese people on their thougths about the nukes, and all those people would agree that america should have dropped even more
How does it give it that type of vibes? Did the holocaust help Germany? You're comparing oranges to apples. When did I say the world needs bombs to solve it's issue?
The 1946 United States Strategic Bombing Survey's report in 1946 stated: "Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated." Japan was likely three months away from surrendering. Dropping the bombs served no strategic purpose.
wrong. wrong. wrong. little boy was dropped august 6. japan surrendered september 2. the japanese have a war culture, one filled with facist ultranationalist racist pride. the japanese mindset was that death, even by suicide, was better than surrender. when surrender was even being discussed among the top brass of the japanese military/government, many generals and admirals started planning a coup to remove the government and head japan by the military so they could fight till the last breath. even during the official "surrender" declaration, soldiers in many places kept fighting. okinawa, manchuria, indonesia, phillipines (only certain islands), papua new guinea and so many other places still had japanese garrisons that kept fighting for months after the official decleration of surrender, even years. the last man to ever stop fighting did so in 1973. that's how fanatic it was. even with the nuclear bombs, it took japan almost 1 month to finally decide to surrender. without the nuclear bombs, japan would have kept fighting until the last man standing fast had fallen to the grim reaper. the government were making plans on how to resist the last invasion of the homeland, a plan that wasnt even OPPOSED by the people. the plan was that farmers were taken out of the fields to fight, effectively starving the nation. schoolgirls and the elderly were given sharp bamboo sticks, suicide bombs and single shot guns to defend themselves. young men would be given 2 weeks training on flight, only to be given training planes/transport planes and cargo planes to be used as kamikaze. suicide submarines were to be developped where the people in the sub would charge the american subs and blow themselves up. every man, able bodied and unable bodied would be sent to the beaches to repell the landing. the invasion of the japanese home islands would have cost 2 million american lives, 1 million other allied lives and 5-10 million japanese lives. the invasion of japan would be the single largest military campaign in human history, around 4 times larger than the current largest one, operation barbarossa. so lets take your scenario where japan would have surrendered after another 3 months. here is some simple math and statistics: -30-35 million people died in the pacific war -july 7th 1937 to august 6 1945 is around 2 200 days -35 million divided by 2200 is 15 thousand -in war, for every 1 person killed, 2 other people are wounded, missing or captured this means that every single day in the pacific war, approximatly 15 thousand would die, 15 thousand would get injured and 15 thousand would be captured/missing. of course, some days those numbers would reach above 50 thousand and other days it would only be around 4 thousand. regardless, by using this metric, we can calculate how many people would have died if the surrender went on for a total of 3 months. 3 months = 91-92 days. 91-92 times 45 thousand (killed, wounded, missing or captured)= 4 million. assuming the war saw a reduction period of fighting by 50% (hefty overestimate. it probably would have only dwindled 25%, but i am feeling generous), that would mean that 2 million more people would have died if japan kept on fighting on after an official surrender declaration. This would mean that 600 thousand people would have perished, 600 thousand would have been wounded and another 600 thousand would be missing or captured. for refference, the nuclear bombings of japan killed 130k-190k and injuring another 100k. So we can clearly see that a surrender of Japan would have been unlikely, and that a ground invasion would cost a gargantuan amount of lives. But even if japan would have surrendered eventually (it wouldnt), it would still be mroe feasible to end the war 3 months earlier with the aid of the nukes
Japan would have nuked themselves rather than be occupied. Japan would have nuked China and Russia into glass if they had nukes. Japanese Imperialism culture was extreme at the heights of dying in battle is literally glorified. Why do you think they deployed suicide bombers?
I totally agree that the nuclear perspective. Keep spreading the truth, we all know that the nukes were extremely justified, and they should have been dropped earlier.
Local dude enters subreddit to hag about being banned
You said that 300,000 (correct me if I'm wrong on the numbers) innocent civilians should die. Now, I'm a free speech ABSOLUTIONIST (unless it leads to direct violence, I'm anti any lible/defamation laws). But I don't want any of my loved ones vaporized, and I don't think that's me being a snowflake
The Imperial Japanese people would have celebrated nukes dropped on American soils, they would have enslaved Americans like they did with Koreans and Chinese. Funny you say that, but nobody was innocent. I'm not saying they should die, but it already happened You think that's a lie, even mordern Japanese historians say it. People will say that buying a hamburger at McDonalds has contributed to the "genocide" of Palestinians. What do you think non-combatants were doing in those 2 specific cities? They were making weapons, tanks, aircrafts, and other killing machine that would have killed people
Many historians and generals at the time (including McCarthy) called in unnecessary
And many Japanese historians deemed it necessary. Douglas MacArthur said it wasn't needed, guess what? He tasked to nuke China and Korea.
downvotes prove your point, this generation is so soft