Click to expand
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#9 - lolfire (05/31/2012) [-]
Still complain about Pearl Harbor after nuking Japan twice..
#203 to #9 - largenintimidating (06/01/2012) [-]
Nukes: Dropped during a war. Ended the war early, and actually saved Japan from an invasion where their own stubbornness would have forced the invading Allies to burn the country to the ground.

Pearl Harbor: Surprise attack on a neutral nation.

Both were wrong, and if it happened 70 years ago, it's time to stop bitching about it whatever it may be. The fact still stays that Pearl Harbor is still more bitch-worthy than the nukes.
#208 to #203 - herecomesjohnny has deleted their comment [-]
#200 to #9 - anonymous (06/01/2012) [-]
The attack on Pearl Harbor was unwarranted. Yes, the US oil embargo on Japan put them in a desperate position, but they could have chosen to withdraw from China.
Nuking Japan was horrific, but potentially saved lives in the end, and put an end to a brutal war.
As to your joke, both sides have valid reason to complain, and neither are foolish because they do so.
User avatar #194 to #9 - theexplodingcheez (06/01/2012) [-]
they sneak-attacked us against all war codes, for practically no valid reason. We gave them many warnings, and they refused to surrender, so we did what we said we would do to stop the war. Some say it actually saved lives.
User avatar #192 to #9 - theexplodingcheez (06/01/2012) [-]
hey bro, they started it
User avatar #191 to #9 - stormbh (06/01/2012) [-]
the lack of knowledge is disturbing...
#189 to #9 - anonymous (06/01/2012) [-]
Hi. I'm posting as anon because I don't know which way the comments can go. But I really think that both sides are wrong. No matter how much warnings America got from Japan about bombing a military base, America still did not deserve the bombing on Pearl Harbor. It killed a lot of people. The Japanese didn't deserve to be nuked. Nobody deserves to be put through that much destruction. But they were warned that we would do that as well. They didn't stop. So we nuked their asses. After that, they still didn't stop. So we nuked their asses again. Then they stopped. And there was no more world war II. And everybody lived happily ever after. The end.
#197 to #189 - lolfire (06/01/2012) [-]
America is like Jack Palance in the movie Shane, throwing the pistol at the sheep herder's feet: "Pick it up."
"I don't wanna pick it up mister, you'll shoot me."
"Pick up the gun."
"Mister, I don't want no trouble, huh. I just came down town here to get some hard rock candy for my kids, some gingham for my wife. I don't even know what gingham is, but she goes through about 10 rolls a week of that stuff. I ain't looking for no trouble, mister."
"Pick up the gun."
Boom, boom.
"You all saw him. He had a gun."
#202 to #197 - largenintimidating (06/01/2012) [-]
Excuse me?

If anything, the Axis are Jack Palance in that scenario.
#185 to #9 - auesis ONLINE (06/01/2012) [-]
>MFW the crazy amount of butthurt below
>MFW the crazy amount of butthurt below
#145 to #9 - ftwunicorn **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#130 to #9 - lolfire (05/31/2012) [-]
Comment Picture
User avatar #118 to #9 - lordfaggotmaster (05/31/2012) [-]
Well,we warned them, they just attacked randomly.
User avatar #116 to #9 - lillpip (05/31/2012) [-]
What nobody realizes is that we nuked Japan for a REASON.
What did we do to deserve Pearl Harbor?
User avatar #133 to #116 - lolfire (05/31/2012) [-]
Also supplying weapons and money while America was still officially neutral, yeah, you broke some war laws there. Also, America was warned multiple times by the Japanese that unless the weapons supply was stopped, they would attack an American military base.
User avatar #134 to #133 - lillpip (05/31/2012) [-]
Aaah, I see. My bad I guess.
I still don't think they should have blown us up though.
User avatar #135 to #134 - lolfire (05/31/2012) [-]
Oh definitively not. War is a horrible thing.
However, nuking them in return was like someone poking you and you turn round and hit them with a brick.
User avatar #137 to #135 - lillpip (05/31/2012) [-]
But we didn't nuke them because they blew up Pearl Harbor, we nukes them because they (we?) started a war, and so the nukes ended it.
User avatar #142 to #137 - lolfire (05/31/2012) [-]
Not exactly in return, but retrospectively that's how it's seen.
Still, it's over now. Bringing it up only causes tension..
User avatar #144 to #142 - lillpip (05/31/2012) [-]
Yeah, it's done now, we can't do anything about it.
#131 to #116 - anonymous (05/31/2012) [-]
how bout setting up a giant ******* fleet right in the middle of the ocean, a couple hundred miles away from japan. But yeah, you're probably a diplomatic gandhi to see this wasn't at all hostile
User avatar #132 to #131 - lillpip (05/31/2012) [-]
That's no reason to bomb us.....
"Oh look, a fleet off the coast, what should we do sir? They may be here to help us."
"Nah, just blow them up."
Those ******* deserved the nukes.
#148 to #132 - derppopotamus (05/31/2012) [-]
seriously shut the **** up you are so typical research about pearl harbour and then come back with an argument
User avatar #150 to #148 - lillpip (05/31/2012) [-]
Calm down bro, Jesus.
#151 to #150 - derppopotamus (05/31/2012) [-]
look at your comment you hypocrite
User avatar #152 to #151 - lillpip (05/31/2012) [-]
I looked at it, and saw zero hypocrisy.
It's not like I said "THOSE ******* CHINK'S DESERVED EVERY LAST ON OF THEIR DEATHS TRYING TO **** WITH AMERICA. WE'RE THE BEST **** EVERYBODY ELSE THE HATERS CAN SHUT THE **** UP." No, I was calm about it, but you're getting analhurt.
#153 to #152 - derppopotamus (05/31/2012) [-]
you are so chromosome "those ******* deserved the nukes" literally im surprised someone can be so stupid
User avatar #156 to #153 - lillpip (05/31/2012) [-]
Would "They deserved the nukes" be considered calm? Does the absence of a swear word automatically make it angry?
#162 to #156 - derppopotamus (05/31/2012) [-]
it would emphasize the anger if a swear word was present.and "they deserved the nukes" is still a statement that is fuelled by anger. please for the sake off humanity go read a book.
User avatar #164 to #162 - lillpip (05/31/2012) [-]
Not fueled by anger, fueled by reason. Pearl Harbor had zero effect on me, why would I be angry? Also, what's with all the insults? Here I am trying to have a logical conversation, and you're telling me to go read a book, implying i'm stupid, and outright just calling me stupid.
#169 to #164 - anonymous (06/01/2012) [-]
When you call a race of people ******* and then say they deserved being nuked (civilians) after killing soldiers without actually researching the topic (it's very obvious) you are extremely stupid.
User avatar #171 to #169 - lillpip (06/01/2012) [-]
So the Janitors and Cooks and all those "Soldiers" in the fleet deserved being blown up?
#172 to #171 - anonymous (06/01/2012) [-]
You don't join the army without expecting danger. Pretty different from just sitting in your house and getting killed without being involved at all in the war. Get it?
User avatar #175 to #172 - lillpip (06/01/2012) [-]
You don't live in a country at war with another country without expecting danger. If you want to use that logic.
#178 to #175 - anonymous (06/01/2012) [-]
Yeah because the government would let them leave whenever they wanted. It's also not like Japan is an island so they could have just walked off. Japan also wanted to surrender after the first bomb but the civilians forced them to continue because they wanted to get nuked again. Are you seriously retarded?
User avatar #182 to #178 - lillpip (06/01/2012) [-]
Last time I checked, I have a normal number of chromosomes. But there is casualties in war, the nuke was new, America wanted to try it out and saw the opportunity and took it. In my view, 2 nukes was a but much, but they deserved the first one. There are no rules in war, civilians DO die.
#166 to #164 - derppopotamus (05/31/2012) [-]
reason would suggest that you kill 100, 100 off yours get killed not 100s=10000s
User avatar #168 to #166 - lillpip (05/31/2012) [-]
I thought you read my earlier comments? We didn't use the nukes because of Pearl Harbor.
#174 to #168 - derppopotamus (06/01/2012) [-]
well the war lead to the nuking so although not direct it was still caused by pearl hourbour
User avatar #176 to #174 - lillpip (06/01/2012) [-]
Yeah, but that's the butterfly effect, for all I know, typing this out could kill a little Indian boy.
#180 to #176 - derppopotamus (06/01/2012) [-]
i give up your not getting it and its not worth trying
User avatar #184 to #180 - lillpip (06/01/2012) [-]
User avatar #93 to #9 - Patheos (05/31/2012) [-]
What have you done? WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!?
User avatar #77 to #9 - soyouareone (05/31/2012) [-]
If we didn't nuke japan we would have to invade japan by land. There would've been a lot more deaths invading japan, than there would if we nuked them. I agree it was kind of drastic.
User avatar #204 to #77 - themisstophat (06/01/2012) [-]
Its not just the deaths, its the aftermath that also cause damage. Radiation it released poisoned the land and the people.
They're still affected by it now :/
You had a massive power which you didn't fully understand and it in my opinion was used irresponsibly.
You say it saved lives? Its still giving people cancer today.
User avatar #209 to #204 - soyouareone (06/01/2012) [-]
I know, it might have been a little extreme. But, millions of lives would have died if we invaded. And say we lost in the invasion. Japan would still try to expand their reach and kill millions in the process.
User avatar #214 to #209 - themisstophat (06/01/2012) [-]
We seemed to have stopped Germany from doing that. Without the use of nukes.
So that is a lame excuse.
User avatar #215 to #214 - soyouareone (06/01/2012) [-]
We had Russia and Britain on our side. In the pacific it was mostly the US. Germany wasn't as dedicated to their country. In battles in the pacific there were mass suicides from soldiers. And Japan citizens were encouraged to commit suicide.
User avatar #216 to #215 - themisstophat (06/01/2012) [-]
We still ended up stopping them TWICE, without the use of nukes.
You don't battle you just use weapons for a quick fix.
Remember the napalm you used in Vietnam, for a quick fix?
User avatar #217 to #216 - soyouareone (06/01/2012) [-]
We still had a bunch of other countries on our side. And if your talking about WWI don't forget about poisonous gas that other countries used that caused tons of deaths, from other countries, and as far as i know the US didn't use.
User avatar #218 to #217 - themisstophat (06/01/2012) [-]
Maybe so, but none with the death or the aftermath toll of the Nukes.
Their is a reason they're no longer used.
It was irresponsible and nothing you can say can condone them actions.
User avatar #219 to #218 - soyouareone (06/01/2012) [-]
We told Japan that we had an atomic bomb and we would use it if they didn't surrender. We also told other countries like Britain and Russia that we were going to use the atomic bomb on Japan. And they agreed to let us do that. There were many more brutal things than the bombing.
Nanking Massacre-300,000 casualties on Chinese civilians by Japan.
Holocaust-approx. 6,000,000 deaths on Jews.
Russian Casualties- approx. 17,000,000 for civilians
Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki-approx. 254,000
User avatar #68 to #9 - bossdelainternet (05/31/2012) [-]
i've never heard anyone complain about it, just morn over loses.
It was war, what else was 'merica supposed to do, they tried negotiations and threats but japan didn't surrender.
Also, you are aware of what the japanese were doing to chinese civilians in china?
#61 to #9 - fluffylittlebunny (05/31/2012) [-]
Very nice Level you're on... wait, what?
#58 to #9 - anonymous (05/31/2012) [-]
its japans fault they were nuked. they attacked us, they knew the possible consequences of starting a ******* war.

pic related to lolfire.

User avatar #205 to #58 - themisstophat (06/01/2012) [-]
You had a massive power which you didn't fully understand and it in my opinion was used irresponsibly.
Its still giving people cancer today, so you're still killing people.
#63 to #58 - bossdelainternet (05/31/2012) [-]
finally, someone who understands!
finally, someone who understands!
#53 to #9 - anonymous (05/31/2012) [-]
i recomend scrolling real fast to skip alot of butthurt no one needs to read
#37 to #9 - mrbull (05/31/2012) [-]
Take reply is for those that are arguing about Pearl Harbour and the two Atomic bombings. Let's look at statistics.

Pearl Harbour
Civilian casualties:
57 killed
35 wounded[4]

Two Atomic bombings.
90,000–166,000 killed in Hiroshima
60,000–80,000 killed in Nagasaki

Some of them were soldiers, but I'm trying to exclude soldiers in this. Because when it comes down to it, from my opinion, the most important thing to avoid during a war is the injuring and/or killing civilians.
#51 to #37 - anonymous (05/31/2012) [-]
You're literally retarded. What about the thousands of civilians killed in Australia during the Kangaroo wars of 1903. That war was designed around killing civilians.
#50 to #37 - anonymous (05/31/2012) [-]
they were dropped warnings for several days before both bombings. Natural reaction to an attack during war. Not only is it Japan's fault the bomb was dropped but they refused to leave either time they were warned.
#69 to #50 - anonymous (05/31/2012) [-]
Well... A country is pretty pathetic when their main goal is to hurt the civilians. At least Japan knew the difference between "Military" and "Civilians".
Well... A country is pretty pathetic when their main goal is to hurt the civilians. At least Japan knew the difference between "Military" and "Civilians".
User avatar #210 to #69 - soyouareone (06/01/2012) [-]
Yet Japan killed millions of Chinese civilians including babies in gruesome ways. They had contests to see how many civilians they could kill. And some reports say that officers would throw babies up into the air and catch them with their bayonets.
User avatar #127 to #69 - owcoleow (05/31/2012) [-]
Are you kidding me, anon? Look at this, I dont want to spend a hour pointing out how retarded your comment was. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes
#165 to #127 - anonymous (05/31/2012) [-]
Same Anon here! I know about other events to... Seriously. What I meant there was the Pearl Harbor event. What I meant in the comment was that their main target was the military while Americas was civilians. Has in America got butthurt and started threatening to hurt civilians. Im not talking about other war/events!!!! I have read enough to know the japanese people can be scary son of a bitches and heartless. The only other excuses America had was that the people of Japan stood strong and proud with their leaders and would never surrender. America could have...I dont know... Attack and weaken the 			*******		 military? But hey I dont know... Im just an Anon.   
<-- pic unrelated.
Same Anon here! I know about other events to... Seriously. What I meant there was the Pearl Harbor event. What I meant in the comment was that their main target was the military while Americas was civilians. Has in America got butthurt and started threatening to hurt civilians. Im not talking about other war/events!!!! I have read enough to know the japanese people can be scary son of a bitches and heartless. The only other excuses America had was that the people of Japan stood strong and proud with their leaders and would never surrender. America could have...I dont know... Attack and weaken the ******* military? But hey I dont know... Im just an Anon.

<-- pic unrelated.
User avatar #211 to #165 - soyouareone (06/01/2012) [-]
Japan would never give up. They would rather kill themselves then suffer defeat. That tells you a lot. So who knows civilians can easily pick up a gun and shoot at people. And who's to say that Japan wouldn't arm their civilians to fight
User avatar #206 to #165 - samxdaxman (06/01/2012) [-]
think of it this way: if the americans and british invaded japan, there would be more civilian deaths and more japanese soldier deaths, not to mention the loss of american and british soldiers life.
#125 to #69 - pedroparra (05/31/2012) [-]
have you heard of the chinese holocaust? I recommend you look it up.
pic unrelated.
User avatar #85 to #69 - bossdelainternet (05/31/2012) [-]
Are you serious? you think japan wasn't hurting civilians during the war?
look up Unit 731. Or just do some research on Second Sino-Japanese war.
#55 to #50 - therealmclovin (05/31/2012) [-]
We didn't warn Japan about the atomic bombing on Hiroshima. But we did on the second bomb site. Except we didn't warn Nagasaki we warned a military base (which was our second intended target) but the sky was too cloudy to drop it on said military base so we just dropped it on Nagasaki.

After studying the bombings quite extensively I do believe they deserved it. They wouldn't surrender and if we went to war with them we estimated we would've had well over 100,000 American casualties.
User avatar #59 to #55 - ferrettamer ONLINE (05/31/2012) [-]
100 000 American military casualties vs. around 200 000 Japanese civilian casualties...
#67 to #59 - therealmclovin (05/31/2012) [-]
I said well over 100,000. It could've been more but the speculations tend to be at well over 100,000. We did it for the good of the United States, because maybe if we went to war 500,000 of us would have died and we would have lost Hawaii. It was too risky to do anything but drop the atomic bomb on them. We got what we wanted, did we not?

Also since we were the first to use it, it put in place that using an atomic bomb is extremely catastrophic and some historians believe for that reason Hitler never used it on England.
#98 to #67 - anonymous (05/31/2012) [-]
You mean Hitler didn't use it on purpose ??
#103 to #98 - therealmclovin (05/31/2012) [-]
He was close to making it but he got demotivated in doing so after we used it on Japan.
#138 to #103 - anonymous (05/31/2012) [-]
I call ******** ... Mainly because Hitler was dead for a couple months before the bombs were ever dropped. Or, you know... Your way works too...
User avatar #79 to #67 - brtaylorgang (05/31/2012) [-]
Actually from what i studied an invasion of Japan would have resulted in a million Japanese casualties and a million American casualties. By invading Japan we would have delayed the ending of the war and cause more Japanese and American deaths.
#91 to #79 - therealmclovin (05/31/2012) [-]
We must have differing sources. But nonetheless, nuking Japan resulted in less possible casualties.
#54 to #50 - anonymous (05/31/2012) [-]
They were given the chance to surrender.

What I love is how stupid ignorant people don't realize one thing: IF WE DIDN'T DROP THE NUKE, EVENTUALLY SOMEONE WOULD HAVE ON US.

******* stupid people need to understand the realistic aspect of it. Stop pretending to be some internet humanitarian you cunts.

ALSO Those nukes weren't payback for pearl harbor you ******* idiots they were to end Japan's power and send a message. We joined the war and found against Japan since they attacked us. Comparing the A/H-bombs and Pearl harbor is just ******* dumb
#66 to #54 - snakebelmont (05/31/2012) [-]
Actually if they had the tech to drop a nuke why wouldn't they react after the first nuke by firing their own, instead of continuing to fight, The first nuke was to stop japan from fighting, without the second nuke japan would not have stopped fighting.
#86 to #66 - anonymous (05/31/2012) [-]
You missed the point. Nazi's were developing tech, we beat them there. It was possible Japan had prototypes and it is true that they were researching it. So if we didn't attack them and strike first, I say first because they attack pearl Harbor, they didn't attack America (If you know what I mean).
THey would have eventually researched it, since the stalemate battlefeilds would have remained stalemated. And could of gotten it.

The purpose of the Nuke was to send a message that we will beat them and they need to surrender. They were warned. You gotta realize in war, you attack cities. We bombed the **** outa Berlin and Germany, however dropping a nuke on hiroshima is out of line? Germany was going to bomb Manhattan, if they continued to do good. You just don't understand common war strategy or politics. Big decisions must be made against the few to save the many.
--Owned by anon,
User avatar #97 to #86 - snakebelmont (05/31/2012) [-]
Actually the war was going on longer than it should have because america was selling weapons to both sides to make money. A nuke is out of the question because of the everlasting effects, a whole patch of land is gone. I don't believe that germany would have bombed america, with an multiple countrys surrounding germany that were more of a threat.
#38 to #37 - anonymous (05/31/2012) [-]
we lost many ships as well. The Japanese tried to cripple our naval forces
User avatar #49 to #38 - pukingrainbows (05/31/2012) [-]
That's kind of the point in a war.
#41 to #38 - mrbull (05/31/2012) [-]
Unless they were cruise ships, I don't give a **** .
User avatar #34 to #9 - BeardOfJesus (05/31/2012) [-]
i hate Michael bay for the ****** movie more than i hate japan for the actual bombing.
User avatar #22 to #9 - neoncookie (05/31/2012) [-]
american army logic, they bomb us and destroy a harbour, lets blow the living be-jesus out of two of their cities
User avatar #29 to #22 - bossdelainternet (05/31/2012) [-]
it was a war. nuking two small cities is like a good way to end a war, no?
User avatar #31 to #29 - neoncookie (05/31/2012) [-]
i agree it is, just i cant help think of it as revenge/retaliation
User avatar #57 to #31 - bossdelainternet (05/31/2012) [-]
Without doing much research it does seem that way; however, the nuke seemed to be the only solution to ending the war without invading.
#90 to #57 - baconmaybebacon (05/31/2012) [-]
I agree it was necessary for a nuke do be dropped but it's kind of ******* low to hit a city and not a military installment. And for ***** sake if you're going to do it do it right hit tokyo if you're going to bring civilians into the war like a little bitch.
User avatar #198 to #90 - theaceofthespade (06/01/2012) [-]
Hiroshima had a high concentration of troops, military facilities and military factories that had not yet been subject to significant damage.

Nagasaki was a major shipbuilding city and a large military port.
User avatar #94 to #90 - bossdelainternet (05/31/2012) [-]
Unit 731. Japan invaded China and brutally slaughtered or performed morbid experiments on over 20 million Chinese and Russian civilians. Japan was playing dirty before The United States was even bought into the war.
I'm sorry if you're Japanese, I'm not saying Japanese are evil.
#193 to #94 - baconmaybebacon (06/01/2012) [-]
Two wrongs don't make a right
User avatar #129 to #94 - Chuckaholic (05/31/2012) [-]
That doesn't justify it. Do you commit genocide on innocent germans because of what the third Reich did? Of course not. Yes the japanese military was savage but that shouldn't justify the death of thousands of innocent civillians.
User avatar #155 to #129 - bossdelainternet (05/31/2012) [-]
Killing germans today wouldn't justify the holocaust; however, killing germans during war-time would. If nuking two cities is the only way to end one of the worst wars in history then by all means go ahead.
User avatar #157 to #155 - Chuckaholic (05/31/2012) [-]
So murdering innocent german civillians during the second world war is justifiable because of the holocaust. You're ****** up. The civillians did nothing in the holocaust yet you think it' okay to kill millions, that puts you on their level.
User avatar #160 to #157 - bossdelainternet (05/31/2012) [-]
It's a war, nations bomb other nations to force them into submission all the time. It just so happened that the US invented a new type of bomb to force their enemy into submission. What the United states did on the 6th and 9th of August 1945 was completely necessary.
User avatar #167 to #160 - Chuckaholic (05/31/2012) [-]
I was saying you can't justify it by stating that the japanese did horrid things, you have to justify it on other terms, I'm not saying it wasn't necessary, I'm saying that the japanese had ****** up experiments in other countries doesn't justify it.
User avatar #170 to #167 - bossdelainternet (06/01/2012) [-]
It's true. You cannot justify the killing of tens of thousands of people in any way. But we need to realize that it was completely necessary. The Manhattan project was the only solution to the persistent Japanese.
Btw, do people hate americans? it seems everyone on this site goes out of their way to make them look like ignorant war mongering pigs.
User avatar #173 to #170 - Chuckaholic (06/01/2012) [-]
I don't know. I think the bombs were necessary just that the justification you used at first was not valid. It potentially prevented more deaths although those figures are guesstimates. I think that people like to pick on other countries and as there are a lot of Americans it's funny for some people. I mean I laugh at jokes against my own country but some people are stupid or seriously misinformed.
User avatar #177 to #173 - bossdelainternet (06/01/2012) [-]
these aren't jokes though. These are hateful insults in the comments. If i were american i would be rather offended, as a kiwi i can say i'm disgusted at the ignorance and lack of thought in these comments.
User avatar #179 to #177 - Chuckaholic (06/01/2012) [-]
Yeah, I'm part Aussie and sometimes you just have to be a bit thick skinned and let things slide so they don't escalate you know.
User avatar #181 to #179 - bossdelainternet (06/01/2012) [-]
If you let things slide then they just gain momentum...
User avatar #183 to #181 - Chuckaholic (06/01/2012) [-]
If you ignore something on the internet it will stop eventually. If you fight it it can grow quickly.
User avatar #186 to #183 - bossdelainternet (06/01/2012) [-]
i guess you're right. I hate letting people run off with a negative impression of nations and people though.
User avatar #187 to #186 - Chuckaholic (06/01/2012) [-]
Yeah I agree, but if I don't want abuse directed my way I try to ignore it. Sometimes I can't help it though and end up arguing :p, can be fun, can be annoying, depends on the IQ of the person
User avatar #190 to #187 - bossdelainternet (06/01/2012) [-]
or common sense.
#25 to #22 - RequieminMortis (05/31/2012) [-]
> implying that the nukes were our revenge for Pearl Harbor, and not the Doolittle Raid
#56 to #25 - sumakabob **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #196 to #56 - RequieminMortis (06/01/2012) [-]
Exactly. Like I said below, the options were "nuke them and hope they surrender", or "launch an invasion that would have extended the war and killed tens of millions".
#199 to #196 - sumakabob **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #27 to #25 - neoncookie (05/31/2012) [-]
i think that while discussing the descion to nuke hiroshima, an argument for doing it would have been pearl harbour. Myabe im wrong but i think its likely it was an argument for
User avatar #32 to #27 - RequieminMortis (05/31/2012) [-]
By 1945, the U.S. was beyond the "let's get revenge for Pearl Harbor" stage and was just trying to get the war over with as quickly as possible. The nukes were part of that decision, because the alternative was an invasion that would've extended the war for another year or two and would have caused tens of millions of casualties.

The Doolittle Raid was our revenge for Pearl Harbor, and it was also our way of showing Japan that they weren't as invincible as they thought they were. The people today who claim we nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki as revenge for Pearl Harbor are either uninformed about history, or are just plain idiots.
User avatar #33 to #32 - neoncookie (05/31/2012) [-]
im not insinuating that hiroshima and nagasaki were just revenge attacks, i know america wanted to end the war and fast. I just think the revenge aspect might have came into the desicion
#19 to #9 - herecomesjohnny (05/31/2012) [-]
I saw your comment, then i saw the ******** of purple lines. I love Americans.
#139 to #19 - thetrollerofgod (05/31/2012) [-]
love when this happens
love when this happens
User avatar #15 to #9 - ivoryhammer (05/31/2012) [-]
Oh this argument again. Pearl harbour was an unanticipated attack before the war between America and Japan started. The nukes were dropped on Japan to save more lives on both sides because Japan stated they would never we surrendered. And America warned Japan what was going to happen.
User avatar #17 to #15 - hyrule (05/31/2012) [-]
There are conspiracies that say that Roosevelt knew that the Japan were going to attack but decided to allow the war to escalate. Also, Japan was on the verge of surrendering..but America wanted unconditional surrender.
User avatar #18 to #17 - ivoryhammer (05/31/2012) [-]
Yeah, conspiracies. There are also conspiracies that we didn't land on the moon, and that 9/11 was an inside job.
#87 to #18 - baconmaybebacon (05/31/2012) [-]
9/11 was an inside job and JFK pooped in my grandpa's cornflakes.
User avatar #20 to #18 - hyrule (05/31/2012) [-]
I didn't say I believed in the conspiracies the first one but the second thing I said is true and factual.
User avatar #14 to #9 - lolfire (05/31/2012) [-]
Just noticed something, my Comment level is now "More thumbs than a Hiroshima survivor"...
Just thought that was a bit of coincidental comedy...
#11 to #9 - anonymous (05/31/2012) [-]
If Japan was not nuked then more lives would have been lost. Pearl Harbor was done just to piss off Americans
User avatar #12 to #11 - lolfire (05/31/2012) [-]
Yeah, but I always hear Americans claim it was a surprise attack....
The only people it was a surprise for were the men on the ground.
Higher ups knew the exact date and time of the attack and actually observed the Japanese fleet approaching...
#10 to #9 - anonymous (05/31/2012) [-]
Dude pearl harbor was like far worse cause it was like a military facility and like almost everyone there was like a soldier guy.-An actual explaination of the pearl habour I got from an actual american.
User avatar #43 to #10 - brainydud (05/31/2012) [-]
I don't see why he is getting thumbed down. He was telling something a guy told him.
User avatar #70 to #43 - penguineater (05/31/2012) [-]
He's thumbed down for not only listening to an idiot but for believing him....
Please don't vote
User avatar #188 to #70 - brainydud (06/01/2012) [-]
oh I thought he was just telling it. I didn't think he believed it.
User avatar #16 to #10 - RAMSAYER (05/31/2012) [-]
You obviopusly don't know how many people we killed because of the A-Bombs. The death toll for Pearl Harbor was about 2400. The estimated Death Toll when we nuked Hiroshima and Nagisaki was 225,000. Not to mention our firebombing, which was worse than the A-bombs. We Americans were real asses in WWII.
#21 to #16 - herecomesjohnny (05/31/2012) [-]
300 000 people largely if you count the mutant babies and cancer pplz
 Friends (0)