On bombings of Hiroshima and Nagazaki

[Sinan09400]

It is interesting that this genocide was trying to be justified with the arguement "If Americans attacked Japanese mainland more would have died".

You know you could justify every single genocide in history that way

[RedPolo]

Play stupid games win stupid prizes.

[Sinan09400]

Play stupid games win stupid prizes.

Exactly this. Winners decide what is a genocide and what is not.

[tunafishha]

Ive been saying this all along, baby. America were a bunch of cucks. They couldn't take on the beast land of the rising sun without nukes.

That said, what if Japan had nukes.

[isingmodel]

Neither were necessary. Japan was on the verge of surrender and the generals at the time knew it.

[RedPolo]

Nothing wrong with vaporizing subhumans for the greater good.

[aal04]

The nukes were for Russia. Japan surrendered all but unconditionally, more people died from the carpet bombing. Everyone was coming for a land grab and they needed to symbolise to the world how powerful they were

[swoleyo]

Neither were necessary. Japan was on the verge of surrender and the generals at the time knew it.

I don't know about that. They were even preparing kids and girls with combat courses.
I think America would have still won without nukes but the loses would have been over 150k troops dying. The mainland was extremely fortified and it would have been a long, slow guerilla war.

America has a lot of technology but culturally they don't deal well with human sacrifice and quickly lose the appetite for war. Vietnam proved this.

A mainland war with a country like China or Russia where 50 to 70 percent of all the military dies for that "victory" including millions of civilians would break this country.

[yeshli2nuts]

Neither were necessary. Japan was on the verge of surrender and the generals at the time knew it.

No they weren't. Can you show some evidence of that? Japan wouldn't even surrender after the first bomb.

[brighamw]

They were a neccessary evil to overcome a greater evil that was sweeping the earth, **** off with your revisionist history...


Oh, and location: Turkey

[iifymbro]

More died in the firebombings on the mainland then in the nukes, fukkin lol at calling total war casualties "genocide"

[soaponarope1]

It was a war so what's the issue?

[wesleysh21]

Japanese women had some bomb azz poosay that day

[turk75]

Neither were necessary. Japan was on the verge of surrender and the generals at the time knew it.

No they weren't. What are you on about?? They were prepared to fight to the very last man, woman & child... Oh lol just looked at your name, of course some leftest turd like yourself would try to spread this BS.. liberals always trying to erase & re-write history. Negged

[isingmodel]

No they weren't. Can you show some evidence of that? Japan wouldn't even surrender after the first bomb.

Japan had been trying to negotiate a surrender through Moscow for a while, as US intelligence already knew. They were economically ruined, their people were hungry, the Soviets were at their throats, and they had no feasible way out of the situation other than to surrender - they just wanted certain terms met such as the Emperor being able to remain in power.

US generals knew this which is why they opposed use of the bombs. Other countries like the UK advised the US to ditch their unconditional surrender demands, which would have swiftly led to a peace.

There was absolutely zero military necessity to drop either nuke. The more you know.

[isingmodel]

No they weren't. What are you on about?? They were prepared to fight to the very last man, woman & child... Oh lol just looked at your name, of course some leftest turd like yourself would try to spread this BS.. liberals always trying to erase & re-write history. Negged

You are so dumb and uninformed that we can only hope for humanity you have never reproduced. Literally just ate up the propoganda you were taught in history class like a blind, worthless sheep.

My username is a model of ferromagnetism, no idea what that has to do with leftism.

[xxdef1antxx]

the dropping of the Atom bombs was more a message to Stalin than a killing blow to the Japanese. Stalin knew we were developing them and was a afraid of them, he didn't know they were operational though. The Red Army could have steamrolled their way to the English channel and the US/UK/France wouldn't have been able to stop them based on manpower alone.

There was more at play than just ending the war in the pacific.

The scenario above was a real enough threat that the Operation was classified until the late 90's.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operat...nt_discussions

[Dave22reborn]

It is interesting that this genocide was trying to be justified with the arguement "If Americans attacked Japanese mainland more would have died".

You know you could justify every single genocide in history that way

Weren't more people killed in the Tokyo fire-bombing?

[MrQuint]

Genocide

noun
the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation.



So I looked up the definition out of curiosity and I'm surprised it's as non-specific as that. What doesn't qualify as genocide under that?

[xxdef1antxx]

Genocide

noun
the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation.



So I looked up the definition out of curiosity and I'm surprised it's as non-specific as that. What doesn't qualify as genocide under that?

I dont think genocide applies to a nation that has declared war on the "genociding" nation lol. If anything, they genocided us first on 12/7/41 lol

[Stizzel]

It is interesting that this genocide was trying to be justified with the arguement "If Americans attacked Japanese mainland more would have died".

You know you could justify every single genocide in history that way

I agree that it shouldn't have been done but it wasn't a genocide. Also the dresden firebombing campaign was far more brutal but no one cares about that.

[IPoopStandingUp]

I guess they shouldn't have sucker punched pearl harbor

[knightofday]

Neither were necessary. Japan was on the verge of surrender and the generals at the time knew it.

The lie spouted over and over and over by communists worldwide. This is false.

[isingmodel]

The lie spouted over and over and over by communists worldwide. This is false.

Six out of seven five star US generals including Eisenhower were opposed to the bombing, because intelligence gathered at the time found that Japan was already trying to negotiate a surrender with certain conditions, namely retention of the emperor. Once the Soviets invaded Manchuria the Japanese had absolutely no options left, and America knew it, Britain knew it, everybody knew it.

Your low IQ and ignorance isn't an excuse to defend the needless mass killing of civilians.

[Stizzel]

The lie spouted over and over and over by communists worldwide. This is false.

Japan knew if they lost midway they would be defeated. That was when they began offering conditional surrender

[Retoaded]

Six out of seven five star US generals including Eisenhower were opposed to the bombing

It was done at the sole wishes of the president?

[Dave22reborn]

Japan knew if they lost midway they would be defeated. That was when they began offering conditional surrender

They knew that after Pearl Harbor they were living on borrowed time, they were hoping for some kind of negotiated truce.

[xxdef1antxx]

Six out of seven five star US generals including Eisenhower were opposed to the bombing, because intelligence gathered at the time found that Japan was already trying to negotiate a surrender with certain conditions, namely retention of the emperor. Once the Soviets invaded Manchuria the Japanese had absolutely no options left, and America knew it, Britain knew it, everybody knew it.

Your low IQ and ignorance isn't an excuse to defend the needless mass killing of civilians.

Your problem is that you look at the atomic bombings thru a narrow tactical lens. Tactically they werent really needed, strategically they were absolutely needed. As I said before, which is conveniently ignored, being the only country with atom bombs was the ONLY leverage we had over the USSR at the end of WW2. Without that leverage the Soviets would not have stopped the land grab that went on during the late stages of the war.

Atom bombs are a political weapon more than a military one. They understood that in the 1940's just like they do in the 2010's. Dropping those bombs cemented our position as a world super power, before WW2 we were a regional power at best.

They were absolutely necessary to use when you look at it from a world politics view taken during the time frame being discussed. From 1945-1949 the US was the SOLE super power in the world, without that advantage the soviet sphere would have been much larger than it was.

[isingmodel]

They knew that after Pearl Harbor they were living on borrowed time, they were hoping for some kind of negotiated truce.

They already had put forward offers of surrender, once they realised the Soviets were not interested in retreating and were going to launch a full military invasion. At that point they were running short on everything even food.

They just weren't going to surrender unconditionally. They wanted to retain the Emperor. Churchill had already told the US to accept a conditional surrender which would have avoided the need for further bloodshed, and top ranking US military officials came to the same conclusion.

It was Truman's political advisers, not leading members of the military, that convinced him to drop the bombs. And it was a political, not military decision.

[Stizzel]

Your problem is that you look at the atomic bombings thru a narrow tactical lens. Tactically they werent really needed, strategically they were absolutely needed. As I said before, which is conveniently ignored, being the only country with atom bombs was the ONLY leverage we had over the USSR at the end of WW2. Without that leverage the Soviets would not have stopped the land grab that went on during the late stages of the war.

Atom bombs are a political weapon more than a military one. They understood that in the 1940's just like they do in the 2010's. Dropping those bombs cemented our position as a world super power, before WW2 we were a regional power at best.

They were absolutely necessary to use when you look at it from a world politics view taken during the time frame being discussed. From 1945-1949 the US was the SOLE super power in the world, without that advantage the soviet sphere would have been much larger than it was.

That seems like a flimsy justification for incinerating innocent people