>>35168881 Conventional bombings killed much more people in WW2. All we did was used two big fancy big bomb to intimidate them, which in the end led to less deaths than what prolonged warfare would have allowed.
>>35168881 Side 1: Invade a country and lose countless of our own soldiers
Side 2: Drop a big fucking bomb on a city thinking Japs are smart enough to give up. Don't. Drop another big bomb from a plane called the Enola GAY and laugh at the permashadows and cancer for the next 70 years
Many more American and Japanese lives would have bee lost had we invaded normally. The Nukes saved lives, simple as that. Is it a great thing? No it's horrible, but it's war. Maybe if Finland ever had to do anything significant you'd understand that.
>>35169196 after 4 years of bloody war with the US, 5-6 with Britain and over a decade of war with China, and suddenly getting this massive weapon, what the fuck do you think they're going to do? Obviously use it. It was the thing to do, throw the biggest thing you can at the enemy. It ensured an unconditional surrender. Invading Japan would have taken at least another year, and the soldiers were fanatical and wouldnt surrender. It also showed the Russians look what we have, fuck u too.
>>35169146 Using advanced technology in war isn't war crime, with that logic if one big native tribe in Latin America is genociding another tribe, attacking them with grenades and automatic rifles would be war crime. Atomic bombings were THE BEST it could be done that way, Japanese then were batshit crazy, they didn't have problem being annihilates to 0 just to not surrender. Shock and awe their ass = surrender + (if I remember correctly) 1 million lives saves in case of invasion.
>>35169358 Invasion wasn't even necessary, Japan was fucked, the USA was just being faggots because they didn't get "muh unconditional surrender" so they killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people
Lel holy shit there are still people who will repeat this myth
If Japan wanted conquest why didn't they keep the chunk of Russia they occupied after the allied intervention?
Why didn't they keep Germany's pacific possessions after ww1?
Both sides contributed to the war in China, and people on both the Japanese and Chinese side tried to stop it, it's not as clear cut as the "muh evil savage Japanese" bullshit, not that the Japanese army didn't commit horrible crimes
The firebombing raids that were occurring over Japan were hardly a good alternative to what was happening here. Pilots were complaining about their entire underside of their plane smelling like human flesh, most vomiting or losing consciousness when realising why.
The nukes might not have been good for Japan, but they were offered surrender after all of these firebomb raids occurred and refused. Far more people died to firebomb raids already, plenty more would continue to die if the theatre involved marine assaults and it was only getting worse.
>>35169516 >people in government already wanted a surrender even before the nukes were dropped or before the firebombing Christ Canadians are worse than us at history. Even after we nuked them twice it was still a massively controversial decision for the Japanese to surrender and it almost didn't happen.
>>35169722 They were, of course publically they had a no surrender attitude but privately they knew the were fucked and the wanted a conditional surrender. They wanted the soviets to mediate their surrender and when the soviets invaded Manchuria their only option was gone, they had no choice but to surrender.
Even if the bombs contributed towards Japan's surrender which is debatable, they still weren't justified because they specifically targeted innocents. The Americans knew that shitloads od innocent people were going to die and they did it anyway.
>many in positions of authority in Japan, including Emperor Hirohito, realized the war was lost and urgently desired to make peace
>The actual rulers of Japan in the spring and summer of 1945 were the ''big six'' members of the powerful Supreme Council for the Direction of the War, or SCDW.
>They included seventy-eight-year-old Baron Kantaro Suzuki, a retired admiral and a hero of the Russo-Japanese war who had taken office as Japan's new premier on April 7. Suzuki privately favored peace, but, as premier he was little more than a puppet of the warlords.....Foreign Minister Shigenori Togo was also a peace advocate, but he was kept silent by fear of reprisals from the militants.
>Suzuki and Togo were often outvoted by the other four members of the SCDW
>>35169947 >muh burns I don't think you know this but in WW2 precision bombing was not a thing. To get the military bases in both hiroshima and nagasaki we would have had to carpet bomb the cities to insure their destruction. Innocents would have been killed regardless, if we were targeting innocents with the bombs we would have bombed Tokyo (which were busy getting fire bombed but no one ever complains about that.)
>Muh historical hindsight with full access to information on both sides. >Muh Japanese didn't do nuffin to deserve it despite Nanking, Unit 731, Bataan Death March, among others. >Think of the chiildreeeeennnn, while ignoring the Japanese literally bayoneted young Chinese/Korean babies FOR FUN. >Not realizing we were dealing with a people who literally would run into machinegun fire because they legitimately believed the Emperor would protect them from bullets.
The Japanese were like the Muslims of that era who began a horrific Jihad to take over all of Asia. It's so easy to pass judgment when you take everything out of context but it was a 100% justifiable decision at the time, reflected by the fact that when polled something like 92% of Americans said the atomic bombing was a good thing in 1950. Even now you can't say it was 100% wrong unless you ignore all of the facts and the Japanese mindset/wider world picture at the time. Soviet Japan would have sucked and knowing the Japanese and how obsessed they get with things, probably would have seen more Japanese dead than the nukes combined anyway.
But this Canadian would defend ISIS taking over the Middle East, then launching an invasion of Europe to rape and murder little European babies, and then get so buttflustered when the Europeans nuke Mecca in return.
>Total war is wrong >Other country declares total war on you and sees nothing wrong with killing/terrorizing your civilians. >You're supposed to just sit there and be considerate of theirs while they do that to your own.
I don't care, Japan violated a truce, stabbed us in the back, attacked us and dragged us into an ugly and violent war. Sponsored and supported by the people and factories that got fried in Nagasaki and Hiroshima, which is why you'll find no pity in the states, China, the Phillippines, Korea, Australia, Indonesia, or anywhere that had a part in the war and saw the suffering inflicted by Imperial Japan for almost a decade.
It's fine to play devil's advocate and all but they're still the devil.
>>35169516 >Before dropping bombs >We ask you that you surrender or we will drop a devastating weapon on your populace >"Fuck off americans!" >Drop first bomb >We ask that you surrender or we will drop another and you now have evidence we have such bombs >"F-fuck off americans!" >Drop second bomb >We can keep them coming >"We surrender"
>>35170095 > the goal was definitely to shock them by killing lots of people.
Don't even need to kill many people. The nukes showed that the Allies had the power to wipe every nip off the face of the earth with far less effort than a traditional invasion. Even the most fanatical warlord is gonna realise he doesn't have a chance at that point.
>>35170302 Where is your manufactured outrage for the Allied carpet bombings in Germany, the German bombings of London, the Nazi treatment of Russians during occupation, the Japanese rape of Nanking, the Japanese biological experiments on Chinese, the fire bombing of Tokyo, etc, etc, etc.
A lot of shitty things happened in WW2 that were just as bad as this and people like you are silent. There was no possible scenario for invading Japan that did not involve shit tons of civilians dying or suffering on top of the military casualties. This was the least shitty alternative and I don't give a fuck if your tiny mind is unable to comprehend this.
I can't believe people think Canadians are smarter and nicer than us.
>What the enemy does isn't important, deliberately killing non combatants is never justifiable
Okay, then we should have made sure even more non-combatants indirectly died from starvation/firebombing and the Soviet/US/Chinese invasion and aftermath, because if millions of more of them die while defending Japan/die indirectly due to the consequences of the invasions, that is so much better than them losing a few hundred thousand.
I don't think war is okay. Who thinks people dying en masse is okay, ever. We're discussing this in context, not from a self-righteous moral high ground. We get it, you don't like people dying, that's cool. In the context of WW2, this was wholly, incontrovertibly, indubitably justified.
You work at a factory pumping out weapons, vehicles, etc. that go towards killing Americans, while living in a city surrounded by installations that shoot down Americans, and keep your gun shined and ready to kill Americans after they land on your shore, you get big spooky bomb dropped on you, the end
>Japan wasn't the evil conquering power any more than the European colonial empires were
Yeah, I kind of missed the part where the French and British conducted medical experiments on helpless restrained colonials and raped and murdered millions of colonials for fun in government-sanctioned and encouraged genocide programs. If you can provide evidence proving that both the British/French did things equally as bad as the Japanese, go ahead and produce your proofs.
>Japan in the past had taken territory from various countries and given it up
Been forced to give it up by other powers or risk war =/= Japanese being nice and giving it up.
>>35170454 >Where is your manufactured outrage for the Allied carpet bombings in Germany, the German bombings of London, the Nazi treatment of Russians during occupation, the Japanese rape of Nanking, the Japanese biological experiments on Chinese, the fire bombing of Tokyo, etc, etc, etc. You don't hear as much about those because no one defends any of them, apart from the occasional shitposter with a Japanese proxy.
>>35170534 >Japan wasn't the evil conquering power Manchuria would like a word with you. Korea would like a word with you. Taiwan would like a word with you. The Phillipines would like a word with you.
>>35170597 Well sure, because we actually trained in tropical conditions and knew how to move around a jungle, personally, I'll tag Vietnam as a win for us and the Kiwis, but not everyone will see it like that.
>>35170616 The city centres were targeted, not the industry and not the ports, destroying military infrastructure and unavoidable collateral damage is one thing, destroying entire cities is another to kill and terrorise noncombatants is another
>>35170737 It's because Churchill stole soldiers from any nation he could and used them to throw at Germany. Things would probably be a little different if he pretended to care about his Pacific allies.
>>35169281 No. There is a moral difference between using a powerful weapon to end the war and having a couple guys engage in a highly publicized head chopping contest. wikipedia.org/wiki/Contest_to_kill_100_people_using_a_sword
>>35170795 In Britain's defense they were barely able to defend their own shores and Australia is a long way away. Any country is naturally going to prioritize defending their own land over something on the other side of the planet.
>>35170767 >Perhaps European colonisation wasn't as brutal as Japans, but do you seriously think that barbarous acts and human experimentation never occurred? Wait, so let's get this straight. Here >>35170430 you said >>they do bad things so that means we can do equally bad things
>Literally the morality of a 6 year old
Now you are justifying it in the exact same way. Are you a 6 year old?
>>35170879 Totally agree, but he actually took soldiers from a country that wasn't his (since we were actually our own army in WW2), didn't inform Curtin about what he was doing, and used those ANZAC soldiers to fight under him. That's why he's a dick.
>>35170799 >you shouldn't talk about this, because something arguably worse once happened Uh huh.
The reason people debate the necessity of the atomic bombs and their role in influencing the Japanese surrender is because there is evidence on both sides and people hold a range of different views. Ever since it happened it has been argued about by people including historians and academics (all of whom are, apparently, 'angsty teenagers'). No one is saying that these are the worst events that have ever happened in human history. The fact that more people died in another situation does not mean that no one should ever talk about this. If you're going to ignore someone's opinion purely on the basis that they're talking about the atomic bombings instead of other events, why the fuck are you even reading a thread about the atomic bombings?
>tfw you will never be a battle-hardened, scarred American GI coming ashore in Japan, running helter skelter through Japanese villages, busting down doorways and taking nubile and petite Japanese women and widows of the men you crushed underfoot, and ravage their vaginas savagely and powered by all of the images of your dead brothers left to rot on a stinking Pacific archipelago, as the women shriek and moan until they finally concede to your glorious white cock.
>>35171346 No, not in WW2. In WW1 we were under the British Commonwealth forces, but in WW2 we fought with the New Zealanders as the ANZACs, independant from the British. Churchill had no lawful right to do what he did.
>>35171433 He didn't. He basically had his generals lie to Australian soldiers who were fighting in North Africa and told them to relocate to France to fight on the Western Front, Curtin only had a few forces return to Australia to fight in the Pacific and thought that was all of them. That's why it was a big deal a few years ago when we found Australian regiments who died in France.
>>35170454 The difference between other bombings like Dresden is that everyone acknowledges they were fucking terrible and always express regret over them, but with the nukes all we hear about is "b-but muh 50 gorillian who would've died otherwise in an invasion."
It's like, yeah we know it would've been terrible if you'd firebombed or invaded the mainland, but the nukes were also pretty fucking dire yet no regret is ever expressed over them. It's always just edgelord amerilards say "b-b-but other bad things happened in the war too"
>>35170616 m8 Germany's tactics of trying to bomb us brits into submission and terrorising the population is universally condemned but for some reason you yanks seem to think it's fine when you did it.
Everyone acknowledges that Dresden was a fucking shitemare and we never should have retaliated that way, just admit that bombing city centres was a bit naughty.
>>35171985 >teaching those Jap cocks exactly what war feels like
Americans talking about what war really feels like makes me laugh, your homelands always comes out unscathed because you're just on your shitty continent with only wetbacks to the south and faggots to the north.
>>35172014 But they weren't use soldiers to use. He stole them. And you capitulated Singapore so easily, when you guys promised to hold and help out. I'd be fine with it if you didn't promise to help out more and then backed out like pussies.
>>35172434 That's what you say, but several countries placed claims around that area. The contention is that we claim it as part of our Antarctic territory, and since you guys don't recognise those claims, they don't apply to you. It's basically just all empty threats.
What else was there to do? The atom bombs killed the least amount of people possible and ended war faster than any other means. Prove me wrong and I'll reconsider. Was it sad? Yes. Was it wrong? In terms of how murder is wrong? Sure. Was it the best outcome of a shitty situation? Yes.
The thing that I've never understood is how people from other countries act like the US should have done something different, like there was a better way. Then they try to say that we only bombed them because we're a horrible country that likes killing people. That's the part that pisses me off and I don't understand it at all. Give me one better alternative. People would have been killed no matter what happened. What's the difference between being killed by an invading army, or a nuclear bomb? At the end of the day, none.
>>35172866 >Give me one better alternative Aside from the possibility that the Russian attack may have been the primary cause of the surrender (ie you would have got the same result at the same time without the bombs), other available options included negotiating with Japan and accepting a conditional surrender, and/or only dropping one atomic bomb.
Would Japan have surrendered without the destruction of two cities and invasion? Because their whole mindset was based around never surrendering, ever. It was literally brainwashed into them, unless you can link me some sources that say otherwise. But if not, it would seem that the only other option was to invade, but that would just kill even more people, both Japanese and Americans + any Allied soldiers who would've also likely have taken part in an invasion.
>>35173050 The worst I could think of is the fire bombing or Dresden. You guys had Nanking, Bataan death march, the Burma railways, countless human rights violations, unit 731, and just general savagery.
>>35172912 A strong part of any good war department is having a propaganda department to dehumanize the enemy. A dehumanized enemy is easier to hate. Japan I now it's been 70 years but go back to how to wage war 101.
>>35173067 >their whole mindset was based around never surrendering, ever. By this point they were trying to surrender, but only on certain conditions. The allies, particularly the US, refused to accept any conditions.
Anyway, what exactly do you think you're saying here? Obviously you're wrong in saying they would 'never' surrender, because they did surrender. You cannot possibly dispute the fact that they would have surrendered in the face of unbeatable odds, because that is exactly what they did. You're meant to be arguing that one particular factor rather than another is what caused them to surrender unconditionally. Simply saying that they would never surrender, does not make any sense at all.
Keep in mind that there had been bombings with even larger numbers of casualties previously, and this didn't cause them to surrender unconditionally. The Russians breaking the non-aggression treaty and attacking Japanese forces, however, was unexpected and clearly demonstrated that Japan had no chance whatsoever of defending its home islands if the war continued.
I meant that they would never surrender unless they were invaded/bombed/lost huge of amounts of life at home. But I'm curious what were these conditions that the Japanese were apparently wanting to surrender by? I would still like some sources too.
>country willing to surrender >drop a couple nukes on them to threaten the soviet union >pretend it was justified by saying lies about how Japs weren't going to surrender and they worshipped the emperor like a god >also make up lies about war crimes that never happened or were greatly exaggerated that Japan allegedly committed >force Japan to accept these lies >write them a constitution and censor their porn forever >60 years later Japan is pretty much the 51st American state
Reminder that Americans are the villains and Japs are cucks.
>FORMERLY SECRET FILES in London and Washington now reveal that Japan was trying to surrender, and had put out the most serious peace messages, three weeks before the atomic bombs were dropped; and that Joseph Stalin, Winston Churchill, and the other Allied leaders were aware of this. >Washington too decided to squelch every sign that Japan was trying to quit. When the International News Service wired on July 7, 1945 that three influential newspaper publishers captured in Okinawa had confirmed that Japan would surrender immediately provided that the United States put in only a token occupation force, the State Department forbade publication of the news.
>On July 8, the Department learned that the Japanese military attaché at Stockholm had told Prince Bernadotte over dinner that the Emperor Hirohito would ask Sweden's King Gustav to contact the Allies when the right time came, and that he had stated only one Japanese condition of surrendering: namely, that the Emperor himself remain in office. (This term was subsequently adopted by the Allies).
>Japan was willing to surrender >The allies knew about it and ignored it (didn't refuse, just ignored) >Only condition was the emperor stay in office
>>35173282 >I meant that they would never surrender unless they were invaded/bombed/lost huge of amounts of life at home. But they had been bombed and lost huge amounts of life already. What's obviously more important is not how many lives had been lost, but what was likely to happen if things continued. In particular, whether they thought they stood a chance defending the main islands against an invasion. The situation with the Russians meant that suddenly they were facing an invasion from a far, far larger enemy force, and no longer had any prospect of success.
>In June 1945, at Beaufort on Borneo’s north-west coast, upon defeating the Japanese and learning of the 2000 Australian and Britsh POWs dying on the Sandakan Death March, Australian troops let loose indigenous headhunters on some of the 6000 Japanese who surrendered. These Japanese POWs were forced in a death march of their own, the “Beaufort Episode”.
>A former prostitute recalled that as soon as Australian troops arrived in Kure in early 1946, they 'dragged young women into their jeeps, took them to the mountain, and then raped them. I heard them screaming for help nearly every night'.
>I stood beside a bed in hospital. On it lay a girl, unconscious, her long, black hair in wild tumult on the pillow. A doctor and two nurses were working to revive her. An hour before she had been raped by twenty soldiers. We found her where they had left her, on a piece of waste land. The hospital was in Hiroshima. The girl was Japanese. The soldiers were Australians. The moaning and wailing had ceased and she was quiet now. The tortured tension on her face had slipped away, and the soft brown skin was smooth and unwrinkled, stained with tears like the face of a child that has cried herself to sleep
>Major General Paul Cullen indicated that the killing of Japanese prisoners in the Kokoda Track Campaign was not uncommon. In one instance he recalled during the battle at Gorari that "the leading platoon captured five or seven Japanese and moved on to the next battle. The next platoon came along and bayoneted these Japanese."
>>35173175 >A strong part of any good war is having a propaganda department to dehumanize the enemy. I'm telling that's your particular nature I don't get You know a propaganda isn't based on fact but is a depiction designed to fuel hatred on an enemy Yet you guys even today imitate how your grand-grand dads reacted and were motivated by the propaganda, as they were manipulated
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.