Can I poke the us?. The puma ready stick.. WWY lit A NUT sum. >Everyone saying how evil America is for nuking Japan >Everyone forgetting about how Japan threw there babies then themselves 95% of the time off a cliff  family guy is th
Click to expand


What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#50 - thelastelephant ONLINE (05/18/2014) [-]
I laughed, but my god was that second panel hard to read.
#99 to #50 - mastercolossus (05/18/2014) [-]
needs quote marks.
User avatar #34 - mendelevium (05/18/2014) [-]
>Everyone saying how evil America is for nuking Japan
>Everyone forgetting about how Japan threw there babies then themselves 95% of the time off a cliff to escape "The White Devil"
>Everyone forgetting Kamikazes
>Everyone forgetting torturous POW camps
>Everyone forgetting mass killings of Japanese Civilians by Japanese
>Everyone forgetting Japanese Dictatorship / King / God
>Everyone forgetting the US constantly dropping warnings before the bombs

10/10 knowledge of WW2 by funnyjunk

Japan would have ****** itself into oblivion before it surrendered, more would have died on both sides then any 2 nukes could do, and much more painfully.
#51 to #34 - mamaluweegee has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #52 to #51 - mendelevium (05/18/2014) [-]
#54 to #52 - mamaluweegee (05/18/2014) [-]
Welp, 			****		.  I heard it at some point and I guess it just made enough sense that I accepted it as fact.  I'm a dingus.
Welp, **** . I heard it at some point and I guess it just made enough sense that I accepted it as fact. I'm a dingus.
User avatar #57 to #54 - mendelevium (05/18/2014) [-]
At least you know now that you dont know, and that's part of knowing what to know.
#134 to #57 - dross (05/18/2014) [-]
"Don't do what Donny Don't does.... Oh man...."
User avatar #84 to #34 - whtkid (05/18/2014) [-]
First bomb was dropped without warning, as to withhold the shock value. The only warnings we gave them before that were for the firebombings that we were doing. The second bomb we gave them warning for.

I agree with your points, and I am someone who fully supports the decision of dropping the bombs, but it's just a topic I know very in depth and I needed to correct you
#96 to #84 - Rascal (05/18/2014) [-]
**anonymous rolled image** false we had given warnings beforehand of the bombs and they ignored them. get you facts strait before you embarrass yourself
#103 to #96 - Rascal (05/18/2014) [-]
you say we as if youre any part of it what so ever
#114 to #103 - Rascal (05/18/2014) [-]
**anonymous rolled image** i was there when it happened
User avatar #132 to #34 - nustix (05/18/2014) [-]
Thinking japan had a king 10/10 history knowledge. Also the main reason most of those things happpened was the emperor. If they would have bombed the royal palace it would have made more sense.
User avatar #109 to #34 - theshadowed (05/18/2014) [-]
Perhaps, though we don't know that. Also, were 2 nukes necessary? A warning could've been gave after the 1st one, maybe Japanese dignitaries given a showing of a nuclear test to warn them, just frighten them off.
User avatar #125 to #109 - sharklazers (05/18/2014) [-]
first nuke was to make 'em stop, they still didn't stop so they dropped the second nuke on nagasaki. that one had dual purposes : make them stop once and for all, and to show the ruskies who was boss
#110 to #34 - Rascal (05/18/2014) [-]
Just because someone else is committing atrocious acts doesn't justify your own acts of genocide. The Japanese never slaughtered millions of American civilians. If the bombs were dropped on military targets then people wouldn't have had as much of a problem with it, but they didn't. They purposely targeted civilian populations to kill as many people as possible, innocent or not.

I notice how you're not supporting 9/11, by posting all of America's evils, when it's the exact same situation only America was on the receiving end instead.
#115 to #110 - stallioncock (05/18/2014) [-]
I'm pretty sure the U.S chose the cities as bomb targets because they held a lot of military factories and **** like that. Therefore by bombing them, they can't reinforce their soldiers.
#119 to #115 - Rascal (05/18/2014) [-]
Hiroshima was chosen because it was a large industrial city with a large urban population. Nagasaki was chosen because they wanted to see if the hills in the location would focus the blast. But both were intended to cause as much damage as possible by choosing targets that had not been targeted by firebombing. So, hitting them where they felt safest.
User avatar #159 to #34 - scorcho (05/18/2014) [-]
>Japanese are evil for killing themselves
>let's kill them
User avatar #172 to #159 - nigeltheoutlaw (05/18/2014) [-]
>implying that's all the evil **** they did
User avatar #101 to #34 - iridium ONLINE (05/18/2014) [-]
>Not mentioning the **** Japan did to China or other Pacific Islands

Dude that **** is the worst they did by far. They treated them like ******* puppets.
#65 - Rascal (05/18/2014) [-]
Comment section.
Comment section.
#78 to #65 - Rascal (05/18/2014) [-]
good post. i stole the gif.
#33 - theseamonster (05/18/2014) [-]
'Murica was ready alright.
#120 to #33 - freddyhollensen (05/18/2014) [-]
User avatar #124 to #120 - coursicar (05/18/2014) [-]
it got me too. lol
#118 - asurasxnight (05/18/2014) [-]
total truth here was US cuts off oil and stuff to Japan, Japan gets pissed, bombs Pearl Harbor. All a calculated move by the US to rally our people to fight Germany.
Flash forward to 2001, twin towers fall, Osama was is Afghanistan, we somehow declare war on Iraq
User avatar #129 to #118 - listerthepessimist (05/18/2014) [-]
dont forget the mauritania
User avatar #165 to #118 - thatoneiranianguy ONLINE (05/18/2014) [-]
Roosevelt had cut Japan's oil supply because we had warned Japan about invading China and violating their sovereignty...which they did.

Our response was cutting their resources, because several years back 1899 and onward John Hay, the Secretary of State under McKinley at the time, enforced and signed in the Open Door Policy note that protected American interests in China by clarifying China's "doors" need to stay open to everyone in the world to prevent invasions of China to protect interest.

...need to tell the whole story.

User avatar #166 to #118 - thatoneiranianguy ONLINE (05/18/2014) [-]
Also Iraq (2003 invasion) was another issue mostly unrelated to 9/11, and a result from years of previous post-WWII foreign policy in regards to Communism and Iran (Iran-Iraq War, we propped Sadaam, funded him with chemical weapons to fight the Iranians with.)

This followed by the Gulf War, which was the defense of Kuwait, and a combination of internal government politics, we destroyed Iraq and Sadaam, but didn't take the chance to get rid of any chemical weapons he may have still had (which we gave him) and take Sadaam out (whom of which we propped up.)

In many ways, these were contributions to the 2003 Iraq Invasion.

Seriously, do you even history?
#139 to #116 - dross (05/18/2014) [-]
MFW hungover from FA Cup final and taking a solid minute to work that out.   
...It's about when Brigadier General Anthony McAuliffe told the Germans 'Nuts!' in Bastogne in December 1944.
MFW hungover from FA Cup final and taking a solid minute to work that out.

...It's about when Brigadier General Anthony McAuliffe told the Germans 'Nuts!' in Bastogne in December 1944.
#1 - Rascal (05/17/2014) [-]
Someone should have paid more attention in history class.
Someone should have paid more attention in history class.
User avatar #160 to #1 - shadowoflife (05/18/2014) [-]
It's a joke.
#2 to #1 - theblargypargler ONLINE (05/17/2014) [-]
Looks accurate to me, why?
User avatar #3 to #1 - bigfriendlyginger (05/17/2014) [-]
Given that the US let everyone else try to stop the Axis ages until the Japanese forced your hand by attacking you i think it's pretty much a perfect representation.
#31 to #3 - Rascal (05/18/2014) [-]
Again, the US SUPPLIED ALL THE ALLIES WITH WEAPONS TO GET US OUT OF THE GREAT DEPRESSION. Then we kicked their ass. Do you guys not realize how important weapons are in a ******* war? AND we showed up, and kicked their ass as well. You're just ungrateful of the guys that gave you the guns to shoot them with. You do realize without the ENTIRE US NATION making weapons for you all, you WOULDN'T HAVE HAD ENOUGH WEAPONS. Jesus, what a bunch of ungrateful pricks.
#107 to #31 - gaytard (05/18/2014) [-]
ITT: americans denying warcrimes
User avatar #176 to #107 - damping (05/18/2014) [-]
Since when is using a weapon a war crime?
User avatar #171 to #107 - imnotkickthecat (05/18/2014) [-]
Hey, if the japanese can deny the rape of nanking, we can deny nuking the **** out of them was a war crime.
User avatar #39 to #31 - kungfulouie (05/18/2014) [-]
Anon is kind of right actually. We gave our allies an incredible amount of different weapons, and we were doing that as soon as the war began, providing them with the things they lacked and needed to defeat the Nazis while appearing to remain neutral to be more effective. We fought the war from the beginning not only by massively helping out the greater cause of the people on the right side, but also got ourselves out of the Great Depression. Nationally, it was a brilliant plan, and it worked great. We also fought them in person, quite well at that. It's just that our first moves in the war were kept in secret, and still remain quite frequently unrecognized.
User avatar #94 to #39 - irico (05/18/2014) [-]
"Gave" implying you didn't charge extremely high rates for the supplies and the money you made from WW2 is what caused you to become the superpower it is today. Also you were extremely reluctant to join the war at all, you had a policy of extreme isolationism after WW1. The only reason you joined was because you needed to save face after Pearl Harbor.
User avatar #128 to #94 - kungfulouie (05/18/2014) [-]
Not really. While we did charge for the weapons we supplied, we charged necessary prices as we were supplying the war effort and fixing the collapse of our nation. Keep in mind that we were literally the Allies secret weapon. And while the money we made did get us out of the Great Depression (which was important for us to do), technically allowing us to become a superpower, that's because it stopped us from starving to death. Of course, that's ignoring all of the technological and scientific advancements we made, both during and since WWII, and there have been a lot, but I can secede to the "we needed to end the Great Depression" point I guess, because we did, so you can sort of have that one.

What I will not agree to is your point of "saving face" being the only reason we joined. The president's plan was to fight the Axis, he just kept that a secret for us to appear neutral to them, so we could freely supply all of our Allies with the supplies they needed, with as little interference as possible. It was a brilliant tactic. That is the reason America's early role is often overlooked, as it was intentionally in cognito. We had clearly chosen a side. To say otherwise is to insinuate that the rest of the Allied war effort wasn't incredibly grateful for what we did, even if only a select few people knew we were doing anything. That was the plan, and it worked.

So even if we weren't on the front lines as long, do not discredit us, as the few people that knew the plan never would. And then, once we started sending troops along with our secret weapons, all the Allies together **** stomped the Nazis, and Hitler decided to take the pussy way out.
User avatar #123 to #94 - demigodofmadness (05/18/2014) [-]
The really reason the government sold those supplies was to provoke one of the axis into attacking us, so that we could retaliate without the people being upset we broke our policy of isolationism. The reason we waited so long to join was to save face, not the retaliation itself.
User avatar #135 to #123 - securityexplain (05/18/2014) [-]
Wouldn't provoking work better if you gave the supplies, rather than sold them? Selling them looks a lot like war profiteering, and if I were a country, I wouldn't really be mad if someone was making money for it. At least I knew that they're in it for money.

Giving away stuff to my enemies during a war, well... I would know that they're out to get me, and would retaliate accordingly.

So, yeah, I'm just going to assume you're full of **** .
User avatar #179 to #135 - demigodofmadness (05/19/2014) [-]
It's more about that they were selling supplies exclusively to allied members. Making it seem like an unofficial alliance.

Let's put it in smaller terms, if you're about to fight some dude, and some guy offers to sell the guy a semi-automatic rifle, and doesn't make the same offer to you, are you saying you'd really say, "Ah well, he's only in it for the money, can't hold anything against him."?

Because if so I'm going to assume you're full of **** .
#122 to #31 - caddelta (05/18/2014) [-]
Over 80% of German casualties in Europe were in the eastern front. The Allies did next to nothing in comparison to Russia in Europe.

Front Total Dead
Eastern Front until 12/31/44 2,742,909
Western Europe until 12/31/44 339,957
Final Battles in Germany 1945 1,230,045
Other (including sea and air war in Germany) 245,561
Italy 150,660
The Balkans 103,693
Northern Europe 30,165
Africa 16,066
Prisoners of War 459,475
Total 5,318,531

Inb4 Wikipedia not legit
#131 to #122 - Rascal (05/18/2014) [-]
More Russians and Europeans died because THE NAZIS WERE TRYING TO TAKE OVER RUSSIA AND EUROPE. Use some ******* logic man.
#151 to #131 - caddelta (05/18/2014) [-]
What the **** are you talking about, these are the German casualties you illiterate nincompoop.
#142 to #131 - Rascal (05/18/2014) [-]
Finally some one said it.  Turns out you lose a lot of people when you lose some cities, or countries
Finally some one said it. Turns out you lose a lot of people when you lose some cities, or countries
User avatar #13 to #3 - davidteninch (05/17/2014) [-]
Half of the US population at the time didn't want to get involved in another European war. It would have been bad if FDR forced an unwilling nation to fight a war they didn't want to.
Think about Vietnam, resentment for that war rose incredibly quickly.
#23 to #13 - Rascal (05/18/2014) [-]
Not really, until the tet offensive the majority of the people were on board with the Vietnam war.
User avatar #92 to #23 - nitsuan (05/18/2014) [-]
Which is the funny thing because the Tet offensive actually worked in our favor, but the media played it off as devastation.
User avatar #43 to #3 - damping (05/18/2014) [-]
I'm willing to bet you are too stupid to realize that the US only joined 6 months after the USSR.
#63 to #43 - oceanfrank (05/18/2014) [-]
The USSR was on the axis side since Hitler invaded Poland but were turned on in 1941 by Hitler himself. Also what the **** does this "fact" have to do with the US entering WWII because of Japans actions?
User avatar #64 to #63 - damping (05/18/2014) [-]
He claimed everyone had been fighting the axis for ages before the US entered the war. Can't read?
User avatar #67 to #64 - oceanfrank (05/18/2014) [-]
It's ******* true though lol, 1 country that was on the axis side at first doesn't equal the entire world lol. What he said was true, what you said was irrelevant as **** to his statement.
User avatar #68 to #67 - damping (05/18/2014) [-]
Russia was never on the axis side. In fact Stalin and Hitler were very wary of each other.
And how is joining in 1941 ages when the war started in 1939 and ended in 1945?
User avatar #144 to #68 - tkfourtwoone (05/18/2014) [-]
"Russia was never on the axis side"

******* historically illiterate cunt!

Ribbentropp-Molotov say anything to you, straya bitch?!

FYI, for the Russians the war started in 1941 (their whole "Great Patriotic War", bla bla bla) when Germany launched Operation Barbarossa.

inb4 the Winter War against Finnland.

******* mongrel.
User avatar #175 to #144 - damping (05/18/2014) [-]
Really a non aggression pact means they are on the same side? I guess the nuclear disarmament treaties between the US and the USSR also meant they were on the same side huh?

User avatar #177 to #175 - tkfourtwoone (05/18/2014) [-]
It was more than a non aggression act, dummy.

In that pact they agreed on splitting the territories of other countries. They were ALLIES. Period.
User avatar #178 to #177 - damping (05/18/2014) [-]
If they were allies they would have declared war on France and England along with Germany. They were not allies. They just decided to write a truce while they dealt with other things. Everyone knew, including Stalin, that Hitler would attack at some point.
User avatar #70 to #68 - oceanfrank (05/18/2014) [-]
He phrased it wrong and if that's the case then explain to me why Russia helped Germany invade Poland, Sweden, and most of Eastern Europe? No **** they were wary of each other, one was starting a world ward, the other was being plotted against.
User avatar #71 to #70 - damping (05/18/2014) [-]
He didn't phrase it wrong looked further below. He talks about how the US "swooped in towards the end."

Stalin and Hitler knew they would go to war at some point. Stalin wasn't ready yet so there was a tentative peace between the two. Hitler also wanted to take France before hitting the USSR to avoid a WW1 style two front war. They hated each other, but it was beneficial to wait a little bit for both of them. Dividing up Poland was to appease each other.
User avatar #72 to #71 - oceanfrank (05/18/2014) [-]
Then hes retarded too. Look just know the USSR was in the war since 1939. that's all that matters.
User avatar #73 to #72 - damping (05/18/2014) [-]
They were not in the World War. They were in a small war with Finland.
User avatar #5 to #3 - Ankou ONLINE (05/17/2014) [-]
Not disputing what you said, by the way
User avatar #4 to #3 - Ankou ONLINE (05/17/2014) [-]
At least the US actually waited until they were ready, unlike everyone else in the war, especially the Germans
User avatar #6 to #4 - bigfriendlyginger (05/17/2014) [-]
oh don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it was a bad move on the US's part. from the perspective of the US it was the best choice for them to swoop in towards the end with the appropriate preparations, I'm just not fond of the whole "America saves the day" misconception that people seem to have without taking into account that the only reason they got involved at that point is because japan brought them into it.
#21 to #6 - Rascal (05/17/2014) [-]
The US didn't "save the day", but their role was absolutely crucial to the success of the allies, mostly for the supplies they gave towards the beginning, but also a large part given to their military's success in defeating a, debatable, weaker Germany.

The US played just as large of a role as any nation did.
User avatar #8 to #6 - IamSofaKingdom (05/17/2014) [-]
Before Japan attacked the US they were already sending supplies and such to the English and had been attacked at sea several times by the Germans who were trying to prevent them from receiving anything. America didn't deploy but they made their side of the conflict obvious long before entering and that is probably why Hitler had already drawn up plans for invading the US after conquering Europe.
User avatar #7 to #6 - Ankou ONLINE (05/17/2014) [-]
Eh, most people seem to be stupid and don't pay attention to actual facts, I try not to let it bother me, but it doesn't always work
#15 to #1 - gibroner (05/17/2014) [-]
Granted it's not the best metaphor for ww2 but it's not entirely inaccurate either this polandball comic does a better job at explaining it
#156 to #15 - Rascal (05/18/2014) [-]
trade embargo on japan and also freeze asset they had within the usa you exapt them not to attack ?
#141 to #15 - bearguy (05/18/2014) [-]
Except that the second Sino-Japanese wars started two years before World War 2.
User avatar #12 - Visier ONLINE (05/17/2014) [-]
Lil' Hitler
User avatar #28 to #12 - groovierpoet (05/18/2014) [-]
By far, The best way to explain WW2
#35 - golfbob (05/18/2014) [-]
"Can we poke it with the is the U.S. ready stick?"
User avatar #36 to #35 - ragingbrony ONLINE (05/18/2014) [-]
The stick is called "is the U.S. Ready"
#37 to #36 - golfbob (05/18/2014) [-]
It still makes no sense to me.
User avatar #62 to #37 - rynkar (05/18/2014) [-]
"Can we poke it with the 'Is the U.S ready' stick?"
What part do you not understand?
User avatar #26 - axeul (05/18/2014) [-]
Oh boy, I hope everyone can understand this is a joke and laugh at the somewhat reasonable depiction that has been given here instead of debating the morals/issues of WWII
#77 to #26 - Rascal (05/18/2014) [-]
There is no purpose to arguing about the morals of something long past, especially when it's obvious, other than to say "durr amerikuns r bad bcuz dey bommed japan".
#167 to #24 - youmotherfather (05/18/2014) [-]
"Allies are awesome and smell good" - Germany
User avatar #130 - thesupremebiscuit (05/18/2014) [-]
So this is the whole of World War 2 in a nutshell
#41 - drekgwright (05/18/2014) [-]
Just to clarify: Harry Truman was our president when the bombs dropped. He took over in the last few months of the war

Sources: I'm not retarted at least i think so
#117 - robuntu (05/18/2014) [-]
Does anyone know how WW2/Pearl Harbor is taught in Japanese schools?

In the US we learn that Japan and the US were involved in peaceful negotiations (that the Japanese were only using to distract the US). We're taught that they attacked without declaring war and that such an act is a war-crime/terrorism.

Basically, we were taught that the Japanese were a bunch of pussies.

But in all the movies I watch and stuff I hear, Japan is supposed to be all about 'Honor'? Naturally, the US beat the hell out of Japan, and Japan got some atomic bombs dropped (U Mad Bro?). Then the US helped them rebuild and we all became pals. Japan built cool cars and video games.

But yeah, I always wondered how Japanese schools cover it....
User avatar #127 to #117 - Funnel (05/18/2014) [-]
Everyone thinks of themselves as the good guys

According to a friend of mine who moved from Japan, they learn pretty much nothing about modern history, only some schools here and there even touch the subject of WW2 and they touch it lightly
#133 to #127 - Rascal (05/18/2014) [-]
Japs don't like to talk about the WWII, great dishonor on their nation, they failed their ancestors and they had to declare that their emperor was not a god (it would be like making Vatican declare there is no God)
User avatar #137 to #127 - wedgehead (05/18/2014) [-]
German fag here.
No, not everyone thinks of themselves as the good guys.....
The jews wont dare to ever think so!
User avatar #138 to #137 - Funnel (05/18/2014) [-]
Germans and Nazis isn't the same thing. Germans back then didn't approve of Hitler, the Nazis did tho, and they still do.
User avatar #140 to #138 - lotengo ONLINE (05/18/2014) [-]
The Nazi's were a political party that got the majority of the votes.
So Hitler was to Germany, what Obama is to modern day USA.

So not all of the Germans were Nazi's, but most of them were. And all it takes is most of them.
User avatar #145 to #140 - Funnel (05/18/2014) [-]
Well that's not a fair comparison now is it, nor is it accurate.

The Nazi party managed to get 3% of Germans support, quickly dropping to 2.6%, he then managed to buy votes all the way up to 43.9% of the votes, at which no more people would support him, spite him pumping money out his ass, so he started threatening and killing off his competition and everyone who gave him bad press, and still ended up losing to Paul von Hindenburg, who got 53% of the votes.
And keep in mind this was before the public knew of his crimes, Germany thought he was just a normal politician, who raised a lot of money to end the great depression in Germany, saving about 1/3 of Germany from starvation.

Hitler got power the only way he could, through threats and violence and buying people off, without it he would never get close to getting any power.
User avatar #146 to #145 - Funnel (05/18/2014) [-]
Additional info: even tho the Nazi party got a lot of votes, only 7% of the population were actual nazis, and almost none of the nazis knew of Hitlers military plans, all they heard was the political mumbo-jombo about how the nazi party would end the great depression and bring wealth to Germany, pretty much no one knew of the experiment, torture and the concentration camps etc.
#163 to #146 - wedgehead (05/18/2014) [-]
Since in the mid-30's they made it into an official crime not to own and know "Mein Kampf", I doubt that.
Hitler published his plans for the Holocaust and for the "Lebensraum Ost" in this book and forced everyone to read it...
User avatar #169 to #163 - Funnel (05/18/2014) [-]
You sort of answered this yourself "crime not to own" "forced everyone to read it".

That was after he had gained his power, by then he owned the military and executed anyone who disobeyed him, his military had an iron grip on the country, not only functioning as an army, but as germans police, functioning as judges and executioners.

It was in other words, too late.
#173 to #169 - wedgehead (05/18/2014) [-]
That sounds right though.
#112 - immatakeaduty ONLINE (05/18/2014) [-]
Quotations, ******* mysterious.
#102 - Rascal (05/18/2014) [-]
ignorant americans everywhere
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)