Why haven't we even said 'I'm sorry'? >They

Winners don't apologize.

it was necessary, even if it was just to scare off the russians it was still necessary

>>2386321
What is there to apologize for exactly? Millions of people, soldier and civilian alike, died in that war - I don't see why a few ten thousand all dying at once is seen as so much worse.

File: 1468876935424.jpg (44KB, 515x515px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 515x515px

The fucking lizards got what they deserved

>>2386321
Obama almost apologized during his visit there.

>>2386321
Obama did apologize, and he needs his ass licked for doing so.

>>2386352
*kicked

Goddammit

>>2386321
The US has never apologized for anything but the treatment of black people.

>>2386321
As if destroying cities was a bad thing in war

File: Bikini Test cropped_1.jpg (30KB, 480x459px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 480x459px

>>2386321

Why would we apologize for winning?

>>2386321
There are no rules in war. Also, those cities were vital to Japan's war effort, and the sacrifice of those people saved possibly millions more from even more gruesome deaths.

File: murka3.jpg (56KB, 437x611px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 437x611px

>we should apologize for saving millions of Korean, Chinese, and Southeast Asian civilians from unspeakable horrors

Sorry, but this is a patriotic board, you commie shitstain.

The nukes were nothing special. Plenty of other cities were reduced to rubble by bombing campaigns over the course of the war.
All the nuclear bombs did is prove that the US had the ability to do it with a single plane.

>>2386321
Don't start nothin', there won't be nothin'.

>>2386321
Bitching about a'bombs when the firebombing of Tokyo killed more people just shows how ignorant you are.

>>2386321
>Apologizing after winning

The world is not a kind place and we cannot afford to be kind

If it is necessary again we will do it. Even if it is not necessary, but still the best and most efficient option, we will do it.

>>2386569
>tfw we don't have Truman Democrats any more

>>2386580
Its because of white guilt

>>2386321
As all these rationalizing responses prove, your underlying premise that it was "wrong" or a "crime against humanity" is correct.

>>2386651
But is it wrong to be "wrong"

>>2386329
shit op b8 but still, fpbp

File: Haruna_under_US_air_attack.jpg (210KB, 1549x1771px) Image search: [Google]

210KB, 1549x1771px

>>2386321
>So we retaliate by wiping out two cities of civilians?
No, we retaliated for Pearl Harbor by bombing what remained of the Japanese fleet at Kure on July 24–28 1945.
>tfw we made the Bongs hit the airfields so we could have the Jap ships all to ourselves

>burn 200k gooks alive with napalm in tokyo
>no gives fuck
>nuke less than 100k gooks in hiroshima and nagasaki
>every subhuman weaboo and nip war crime denialist gets butthurt over it

>>2386321
nips did far worse to their enemies, what we did was a blessing in comparison.

The atomic bombings weren't even that bad compared to the fire bombings also. The firebombing killed more people and was much more painful and excruciating. Yet everyone forgets those even happened and only talks about the nukes for some reason.

>>2388501
>Yet everyone forgets those even happened and only talks about the nukes for some reason.
probably because the nukes were far more iconic, and frightening to people. it's hard to wipe out all of humanity with firebombs.

>>2388511
As we can see from Vietnam.

>>2388511
I believe that is likely, but it still pokes holes in the anti-american arguments who obsess with nukes.

If they really cared so much they would know about the fire bombings, but they just go for the nukes because nukes have a bigger cultural impact.

>>2386438
>There are no rules in war
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions

>>2388533
How many victorious nations have subjected themselves to tribunals for war crimes?
How often do they cite the looser for war crimes?
Geneva is generally not enforced and has very little bearing on how most war is fought.

Why should the people who didn't commit the bombing apologize for it?

>>2386321
Trump has been on a little apology/asslicking tour already, he'll probably throw out an apology for the Nips by the end of his eight years.

>>2386445
>dat pic
(and oil)

>>2386438
>those cities were vital to Japan's war effort, and the sacrifice of those people saved possibly millions more from even more gruesome deaths.
Japan already sued for peace previously on the condition that they could keep their Emperor

>>2388745

And their possessions in Formosa (now Taiwan), Kora, Manchuria, Indo-China, and parts of what's now Indonesia.

>>2388830
Or in other words basically their whole colonial empire before they picked a fight with USA.

>>2388745
>Japan already sued for peace previously on the condition that they could keep their Emperor
Except that's wrong. Japan asked the Soviet Union to sue for peace on their behalf as they saw the Soviets as a neutral power as they had not entered the war yet. They also asked to keep their previous holdings. The Soviets refused and promptly entered the war on the side of the Allies.

>>2388847
Gotta wonder how many of these people who cry how nips totes were ready to surrender would had accepted similar terms from lets say Hitler's Germany (i.e. Hitler gets to stay in power and Germany gets to hold everything that it managed to grab before invading Poland).

>>2388844

So? It was a colonial empire that the U.S. had objected to the formation of and gradually ramped up sanctions in protest over, and would ultimately divest them of as one of their major war aims.

>>2386352
I don't want to lick his ass, but I don't think he apologized.

>>2388879
He didn't. He expressed sympathy for those who were killed in the blast and that was it.

>>2386438
this desu

The invasion of mainland Japan would have resulted in hundreds of thousands of more deaths, and potential Soviet assistance would have left Japan in a Postwar Germany position. If you think the use of the bombs was horrible, of course it was. But the other scenario would have been much worse.

>>2388904
Ramping up operation starvation and starving most of Japan's population to death probably would had been the kindest alternative to nukes.

>>2388904
>The invasion of mainland Japan would have resulted in hundreds of thousands of more deaths, and potential Soviet assistance would have left Japan in a Postwar Germany position.


People always say this. It's one of the most infuriating memes on this site. The Soviets had a grand total of ELEVEN landing craft. That's enough to ship about 400 people at a time. There is no way they were mounting an invasion of Japan unless the U.S. allows them to by lending them more ships to carry forces over.

>>2388904
"Fun" fact: The U.S. made so many purple hearts in preparation for Operation Downfall that we're still using the stock today. At the rate we're going, we'll still have it left over into the next century.

>>2386321
Because Prime Minister Abe is a lot smarter than you, and he doesn't want us to. You see, President Obama did float the idea of an apology; Abe took a hard pass. An apology carries the implication that something wrong was done. It implies that Imperial Japan was somehow put upon by the Americans, instead of being the obvious aggressors. Even Abe, the most militaristic prime minister in decades, realizes that that is a short step away from "We did nothing", an ideology that he does NOT want to take hold

>>2386438
Do you really believe that? Holy shit Americans really are brainwashed.

>>2386321
"Sorry" implies that it was the wrong decision and that we should not have used the nukes which would be deeply controversial. We should mourn the lives lost as in every war though.

>>2388927
>this much hubris
The 21st Century most likely has some exciting new wars in store for America as you lose your status of world hegemon. Best get the Purple Heart printing presses fired up, anon.

@2388957
>being this much of a Cucknadian
Only Canada could try that bait. Even the most liberal IR estimates show 50 years before the world loses its monopolar status and the secondary contender will be lucky to finish this decade without a complete economic collapse from artificial economy building.

>>2388957
Given how fast drone tech is developing future purple hearts will be probably be given to drone controllers for getting tenosynovitis while on duty and other shit like that.

File: 1479614542737.png (266KB, 368x657px) Image search: [Google]

266KB, 368x657px

>>2386321
Because we're not responsible for the deeds of Men generations ago in the past. This kind of historically-relative illogical is what rots young peoples brains. Go apologize yourself in person to a random Japanese person and see the reaction you utter fucking mongoloid.

>>2388971
>@
How do retards fuck this up? All you have to do is look at literally any response in this very thread.

@2388996
Some people don't like giving out unearned (You)'s for shitty bait. Especially bait as shitty as yours. Lurk more, faggot.

>>2388998
You're out of your mind.

File: bomber-15-376870.jpg (31KB, 590x350px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 590x350px

Start shit get shit.

>>2388976
>Because we're not responsible for the deeds of Men generations ago in the past.

How old are you?

My granddad fought in WW2 and he's still very much alive.

That being said I don't think there's anything to apologize for but the 12 year olds on this board who think anything that didn't happen last week was hundreds of years ago drives me bonkers!

>>2388920

Hence why I used the term "potential", should have made that clearer. Without Soviet support, the WAllies would have had a very difficult time in Japan. Lend them a few hundred landing craft, sort out the specifics later. But even with veteran troops and armor that wasn't Japanese (and therefore good) and the meme swarm of the Red Army, the population was pretty much already trained to fight to the death.

I'd post sources (Beevor, Giangreco, etc) but it's late and I'm on mobile

>>2389010
Less than half a million living Americans are WWII veterans. You're condemning over 300 million people who are at the very least a generation removed for the actions of their forefathers and the surviving members of which are dying at a rate that we'll be lucky if there's a veteran left after the decade is over.

>>2389027

I didn't "condemn" anyone and the post I replied to said (sic) "generations ago in the past".

Try to read, kiddo.

>>2389046
The WWII Generation is on average 2-3 generations removed from most Americans thus they are, in fact, "generations ago in the past." Perhaps you should learn to read and do math.

>>2389016
>Without Soviet support, the WAllies would have had a very difficult time in Japan


the biggest limiting factor in an invasion of Japan is sealift. Since the ship production is essentially coming out of the same well, giving a few hundred landing craft to the Soviets means a few hundred landing craft that the Americans and British don't have for their own landings.

Considering the Western Allies had more firepower per division, a more developed amphibious doctrine, less issues about command and control and coordination, it makes no military sense whatsoever to support a Soviet invasion as opposed to doing one on their own. And that's before you get into the political ramifications of allowing the Soviets access.


Sure, it would be difficult, and horrifically bloody for the native Japanese population, but adding the Soviets invading Hokkaido or whatever isn't going to change much of that.

>>2389049

So "we" doesn't include anyone over 72 anymore.

Jeez kiddo, you need to learn some respect for your elders.

>>2386321
People rarely think about it, but attacking a military base doesnt deserve having your country made as an eternal bitch as a punishment
Even without looking at nukes, the fact the US wanted an unconditional surrender and nothing else (even if it meant they had to firebomb japanese civilians for years) just because they had attacked a military base was uncalled for

Americans are the ones who invented total war for shitty motives, and they should feel bad for it

>>2386321
The Japanese should be grateful if anything. We saved millions of their civilians by dropping 2 nukes.

>>2389010
You're missing my point completely.

You as an individual apart of a culture with connections to a devastating point in history, are not responsible for anything the deeds of a handful of men with the same connections decided to do. Neither is your grandfather, unless he was personally involved in the decision to drop Fat Man and Little Boy over Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

To claim otherwise is a fallacious idea of making history relative to modernity, which is an idea commonly acceptable by post-modernist students and idiot kids who argue that the enslavement of black slaves makes white Americans "privileged" due to the "benefits" we've received from our past generations, and other such illogical arm-chair sociologist remarks. When people use this argument they tend to create a biased context or simply ignore facts, that being less the 2% of the colonial population.

Let's say your great-grandfather was a known serial killer. Do you honestly think you should be held responsible for the murders that happened over a hundred years ago, and forced to apologize to the families of the murdered people of the past? This question is universal so don't take it personally. I know you believe what I'm saying. Bottom line is that the modern generations shouldn't be so arrogant as to assume their anyway responsible for what has occurred in the past.

File: strawman.jpg (150KB, 333x500px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 333x500px

>>2389057
>People rarely think about it, but attacking a military base doesnt deserve having your country made as an eternal bitch as a punishment

>>2389056
>kiddo
If you use this term, there's a good likelihood you're not old enough to use this site. You also missed the point of the post entirely. Stop posting, you're just making yourself look retarded.

>>2386321
>be short but angry kid
start kicking the shit out of shorter less angry kids
>giant cornfed farmhand retard tells you to knock it off and takes your tendies
>sucker punch giant retard
>giant retard proceeds to curb stomp you, and hand you your own ass on a platter.
>giant retard then spends the next 60 goddamn years helping your crippled ass learn how to walk
>still wants big retard to apolgise

>>2389072

Sure thing, kiddo.

I'll take this as an admission you decided to declare everyone who was alive during WW2 including half a million brave American veterans of the war were not consequential enough to be considered part of American society.

The alternative was to continue firebombing them killing just as many in a longer more brutal campaign that had already wiped out multiple cities and killed tens of thousands.

>>2389078
Why do you even post on /his/ if you evidently have zero interest or knowledge of history?

>>2389080
>including half a million brave American veterans of the war were not consequential enough to be considered part of American society
They're not considered part of the primary American generation, because they're not the primary American generation. They make up less than half a third of a percent and are multiple generations removed from the primary American generations.

>>2388886
Exactly, that's the right response. It was necessary and ended the war quicker. It sucks that so many people died, but that's war. They should have thought of that before attacking our naval fleet.

>>2388904
>The invasion of mainland Japan would have resulted in hundreds of thousands of more deaths, and potential Soviet assistance would have left Japan in a Postwar Germany position.

God I fucking hate this meme

>>2389093

"Primary generation" is a term you just made up.

File: Sigmund_Freud_LIFE.jpg (876KB, 1066x1500px) Image search: [Google]

876KB, 1066x1500px

>>2386352
>>2386356

Is there something you'd like to tell us?

Fire bombing killed more people, an invasion and a prolonged conventional military campaign would have killed even more. Nukes were the "nice" solution. Plus, it's pretty damned rich for the Japs to whine about war crimes in WW2.

>>2389086
tell me where im fucking wrong?

Japan was expanding and trying to consolidate its holdings in SEA, and started the Pacific war. the Actrocites commited by the IJA on Mainland Asia are no laughing matter as well.

This Suprise attack comes after the US freezes its assets in a bid to get Japan to not attack US Brittish holding in SEA (which they did). Ultimatly Japan lost, and the US spent millions on reconstructions for Japan, Had they invaded that Island id rekon Kyoto whold have made 2016 Baghdad look like Singapore

>>2386321
>start a war for their own imperialism
>try and fight it to the death
they got exactly what they deserved

>>2389107
Except it isn't and it's the foundation of Generation Gap. Please stop posting.

>>2386438

Even if you ignore the geneva convention (which is dumb of you but whatever) most militaries still subject themselves to their own laws.

>this retarded thread

Obama is such a weasel. I get that America can and will never ever officially apologise, but still, have a read of this nonsense:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/28/world/asia/text-of-president-obamas-speech-in-hiroshima-japan.html?_r=0

>>2389121

No it isn't.

I don't understand why you're being such a butthurt little fag just because I told you off for describing something that happened within the lifetime of many living people as something that happened "generations ago".

You should just have taken your telling off and stopped humiliating yourself at that point.

>>2389134
>No it isn't.
Yes, it is. Nice ad hom btw. Absolutely shows that it isn't you that is butthurt. Last (You) you're getting from me.

>>2386321

The destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was obviously tragic for the people who lived in those cities. But it was arguably good for the rest of the world. Because it showed the world just how terrifying nukes actually were, which is why we haven't seen them used in war since then.

>>2389134

current generations are 30ish years. but its a continous spectrum. right now there are people all acrooss the age range of 0-30 but that doesnt mean there are 30 generations running about. it only has meaning in context, and the meaning of generation also changes depending on context

both of you should drop it already

>>2388971
>50 years
I don't know how much you're keeping up with current events, but your economic and political authority commands far less international respect than it did even twenty years ago and you're increasingly forced to throw your military weight around to get your own way. That way lies war, anon, and sooner or later you'll get yourselves into one that you can't walk away from as easily as you have done the last few times.

>>2389140

You should learn what ad hom means.

>>2389147

What are you even blathering about? Who decides what the "current generation" is?

>>2387429

I don't get how there are weebs who say that, they should at least have seen Grave of the Fireflies, and know about the firebombing.

Though weebs are a diverse group, from unironic to semiironic to ironic. Those that like tropes but do and don't understand that they're tropes.

>>2389064
I believe in some form of white privilige. I know there's a racist in the lizard part of my brain, but I know rationally that that part of me is wrong.

I don't agree that such collective guilt needs to be so socially accepted as a maxim of modern politics. It's just made a generation of people able to justify future atrocities.

File: 2ddeb9c800cde2c4c7f9540ea881438f.jpg (44KB, 544x674px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 544x674px

>>2386321
>implying civilians exist in modern warfare
If you buy war bonds, work in a factory, mine, or pay your taxes, you're supporting the war effort and are a legitimate target

>>2389205
>but I know rationally that that part of me is wrong
Rationally that part of you is correct and that's statistically supported. Racism is a rational position that has become artificially irrational through emotion. Anti-racism is feels > reels.

File: 100896-004-4F87C62E.jpg (14KB, 384x450px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 384x450px

>>2388933
B-but muh revere the emperor expel the barbarians

File: tmp_5671-giphy(2)-1261547118.gif (1MB, 480x287px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 480x287px

>>2389057
>Americans are the ones who invented total war

>>2389223
I'm not talking about being afraid of a nigga in a midnight parking lot. I'm talking about being afraid of a nigga in a sweater vest who just got outta church.

I don't feel guilty about that anon.

Right now I'm afraid of politics, that my kids won't grow up in a world where that mindset isn't needed anymore.

I'm afraid that ethnic groups have found new reasons to hate each other.

>>2389251
>afraid
You shouldn't be afraid. However, you should be skeptical. Even niggers in sweater vests commit disproportionate amount of crimes. It doesn't matter their level of education or income. It's higher compared to other races. Again, that's statistics. It's completely rational. The only irrationality when it comes to racism is that it alienates you from your peers (who are irrational). Two irrationalities don't make a rationality so it's up to you whether you follow through with that. Getting back to the point: the mindset was never not needed. It went away due to a perceived irrationality that was actually rational.

>>2389247
>what is Sherman's march to the Sea

>>2389287

Something well after other examples of total war, like say, the wars between Rome and Carthage.

>>2389292
Total war in the modern concept first shows up in the American Civil War. You're correct in stating that there are wars that involve aspects of it, but total war as we know it begins with the ACW (though some would contest with the Taiping Rebellion).

>>2389304

Total war in the modern concept is one where the entire activity of the political unit is bent towards the prosecution of said war, and because of that, any part of the enemy political structure is considered a valid target for military force.


That in no way first shows up in the ACW. It was around for a long, long time before that, from the 30 years war to the Mongolian conquests to some of the wars of the Roman Republic (but not all of them, especially not post-Marian reforms) to the Peloponesean war, to probably things that were never recorded but nonetheless done by ancient, tiny polities.

https://youtu.be/lB3D8dkVFAU

>>2389217
Why hasn't the Rothschild been targeted?

>>2389311
Except that's not the modern concept of total war and modern military historians would dispute all of your post. You CAN argue that the Napoleonic Wars were total wars, but the first war that meets the text book definition of the modern concept of Total War is the ACW. In fact, outside of small tribal conflicts, the modern concept of total war is literally impossible prior to the 19th century. We're sort of arguing semantics here, but it's widely academically accepted that the ACW is the first conflict which meets the modern concept of total war. Here's a nice short paper on the subject: http://www.cc.gatech.edu/~tpilsch/INTA4803TP/Articles/Total%20War-definition&discussion.pdf

File: Nyotaika_General_Biographies_in_the_World_20_century_130.jpg (354KB, 1169x1700px) Image search: [Google]

354KB, 1169x1700px

>>2389315
>be a cannibalistic death cultist ready to die for your god-emperor
>act surprised when your opponent would rather bomb the fuck out of you rather than send their troops to get killed and eaten by you

>>2389341
Rothschild's and their lackeys always fund&equip both sides of the conflict.

>>2386321
Giving Japan a large portion of the Marshall Plan, and helping the economy grow to an extent that rivals many European nations seems like a pretty decent apology to me.

>>2389342
>>2389342

>Except that's not the modern concept of total war

Yes it is. It's paraphrased Clausewitz.

>and modern military historians would dispute all of your post.

And which part is that?

>You CAN argue that the Napoleonic Wars were total wars,

Not exactly, no. Most of the various coalition states weren't even capable of shifting internal resource management around to the point of getting to total war, which was one of the reasons the French managed to produce armies so much larger relative to their overall population and wealth than say, Austria or Russia or Prussia.

> but the first war that meets the text book definition of the modern concept of Total War is the ACW.

No, it fucking isn't.

> In fact, outside of small tribal conflicts, the modern concept of total war is literally impossible prior to the 19th century.

Again, it fucking isn't, because all you need to have total war is political organization and willingness to use maximum force.

>http://www.cc.gatech.edu/~tpilsch/INTA4803TP/Articles/Total%20War-definition&discussion.pdf

The very first line

>Total war is one in which the whole population and all the resources of the combatants are committed to complete victory and thus become legitimate military targets.

Now, it was a whole 2 posts up, but remember when I wrote


>Total war in the modern concept is one where the entire activity of the political unit is bent towards the prosecution of said war, and because of that, any part of the enemy political structure is considered a valid target for military force.

And how they're pretty much the same?

Again, with that definition, how do you argue things like the Peloponeasan war wasn't a total war between Athens and Sparta? How do you argue that the 30 years war wasn't a clustering of total wars between the various polities in Germany? How do you argue that the Wei-Shu war in the 230s wasn't a total war?

>>2389366
>Peloponeasan war wasn't a total war between Athens and Sparta
Because they were completely incapable of total war. Destruction was total, the war was not. The entire political unit was not bent towards the prosecution of the war. Same goes for the thirty years war, particularly regarding the fact that states did not exist as entities prior to it. You should really read past the first line of that link. You might learn something.

>>2389377
>Because they were completely incapable of total war.

What makes them so incapable? They certainly seemed to mobilize the whole population and their total resources to persecute the conflict, if what primary sources we have from the era can be believed.

>Same goes for the thirty years war, particularly regarding the fact that states did not exist as entities prior to it.

Which is why your guy says "population" and my own definition said "polity" not 'state'.

>. You should really read past the first line of that link. You might learn something.

I have now read the entirety of the three pages of it, and other than one uncited assertion that the Punic wars weren't total because Carthage didn't devote their full resources to it (which is almost impossible to prove one way or the other given how lacking our knowledge of Carthage and what their resources for war were), absolutely nothing he says supports your claim that the ACW was the first total war or that earlier political units were incapable of it. Fuck, he even says, in regard to the Vietnam war, that the principle of asymmetric total war, where a weaker party tries to balance out its material deficiencies by greater commitment is "as old as time".

>>2389419
But if one party does not fully commit then it is not a total war.

>>2389440

Didn't read the paper, did you?

>Total war can be unilateral, bilateral, or multilateral, and is characterized by an absence of rules or restraint in the conception and execution of military action in pursuit of unlimited political objectives.

Not to mention, again, the last paragraph.

>At the more practical level, assymetrical total war in Vietnam and a number of other post-imperial conflicts revealed a principle as old as time, namely that military might alone cannot substitute for an absence of doctrine and of properly thought out policy.


A unilateral total war is one where one party is fighting a total war but the other is not; the mere existence of such a concept precludes your statement. Unless of course, you want to take issue with the paper's definitions, but that in turn would mean you'd have to construct a different conception of total war and explain why you think it's superior to one rooted in the concept of political expression of unlimited commitment.

You could debate over whether we made the right choice until the cows came home, but that's sort of beside the point. The real issue is that of we apologized for this, we would end up having to apologize for a bajillion other things.

>>2388830
This is wrong. They asked to keep korea and Manchuria but were willing to give up everything else. Essentially status quo ante bellum

>>2386352
This never happened.

>>2389530
Which is still a bullshit deal.

File: images.jpg (5KB, 228x221px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 228x221px

>>2386445
Vietnam.

>>2389607
Well, would you rather live in South Korea or North Korea?

>inb4 evasion

>>2386321
They should be happy enough that we stopped at two.

Not even most Japanese want an apology. Shit, they ostracized the victims for years.

http://ww2history.com/experts/Akira_Iriye/The_Atomic_Bomb

>>2386321
>we
>apologise
nice try yuropoor

File: 1413266050461.png (303KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

303KB, 640x480px

>>2386321
How many times do we have to go through this?

Oberstein did nothing wrong.

>>2389346
>not posting any of the WW2 ones
The Halsey one was cute.

>>2389086
That's a pretty accurate description tho

>>2386321

The only thing the west needs to apologize for is not using more nukes. Japan deserved more than just the two we dropped. China and SE Asia would agree.

>>2386321
>Again, why haven't we apologised?
They deserved it.

>>2386438
Since everyone is calling you out for the rules I figured I'd call you out on saying that Nagasaki wasn't actually the primary target but was destroyed because of bad weather or something covering the first city

I don't think the city had any real war production value

>>2386321
>Why haven't we even said 'I'm sorry'?

Because we're not.

>>2391455
>I don't think the city had any real war production value

You would be wrong. In fact, some 90% of the city's population worked in some sort of industry that supported the war effort; most of it was Mitsubishi stuff, a lot of shipbuilding.

And I'm not sure where this meme that it was a last minute substitution came from; Nagasaki was on the target list since before the bombs were ready, on July 3rd.

Yes, Nagasaki was the secondary target that day, (Kokura was the primary target, if anyone cares) but that was pretty common in mission profiles, as a hedging against a last minute problem or reconaissance showing that the target was better defended or something.

And it wasn't weather that provoked the change of target, it was flak fire as well as smoke from the city, (some of it intentional, the Japanese would burn coal tar to make things hard to see), and they couldn't visually confirm the target point.

>>2386321
Cause those yellow fucks deserved way worse

>>2386321
You haven't apologised because the US is the 4th Reich.
It's just you Yankees that "don't get it".

>>2386321
>we
>apologised
Dumb Brit, stop using French spelling

its gona be funny when america, like any other empire gets overthrown
because sure as hell we all gona take a kick in them and we gona enjoy it

>>2389610
I would rather live in Modern Vietnam than South Vietnam.

>>2391417

And then a good atomic bomb dump between the Chinese Korean border ten years later.

>>2389961

We could only really do three max. It was a decent bluff

>>2386321
america was fucking firing on japanese and german shipping long before they declared war. Roosevelt was itching to get into a fight and he knew it.

>>2393753
They also put an oil embargo on Japan. What the fuck did Roosevelt expect would happen?

>>2393759

An attack on the Philippines or at Wake Island.

>>2393771

It was all just a set up. Though I wonder if America would do anything if the Japanese attacked the Dutch overseas colonial assets to seize their oil. I think it would have been a much harder sell for proper intervention.