'Murica 9/11. I know it's a repost, but the picture has a point.. NU KES JAPAN TWICE In I TALKS ABOUT 9/ 1 1 ALL THE TIME MEMEBASE, c. om. Hold your OP. We we in WORLD WAR II. If we invaded Japan we would have lost men more than you could imagine. We were getting our asses kicked even taking over t dumb americans WTF


Anonymous comments allowed.
#61 - zomba **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#1084 to #61 - anon (09/12/2012) [-]
Holy **** this has a lot of replies.
#1367 to #1084 - zomba **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#1174 to #61 - crypticrumpet (09/12/2012) [-]
Japanese reporters were pretty eager to find out what the official government response was going to be, and consequently they bugged Japanese Premier Kantaro Suzuki nonstop for a statement. Eventually, Suzuki caved in, called a news conference and said the equivalent of, "No comment. We're still thinking about it." The reporters had to go back unsatisfied, the Japanese government eventually came to a decision and told the U.S., and everything worked out fine.
Japanese reporters were pretty eager to find out what the official government response was going to be, and consequently they bugged Japanese Premier Kantaro Suzuki nonstop for a statement. Eventually, Suzuki caved in, called a news conference and said the equivalent of, "No comment. We're still thinking about it." The reporters had to go back unsatisfied, the Japanese government eventually came to a decision and told the U.S., and everything worked out fine - Cracked.com

tl; dr
It may have been an error in translation on the response of the japanese government.
America doesn't sweat the small stuff
#704 to #61 - eulogy **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#775 to #704 - zomba **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #796 to #775 - ilovehitler (09/12/2012) [-]
And besides, wouldn't an atomic bomb not really matter where it was dropped? Even if it weren't dropped on a school, the radiation would still have killed everyone in it, that or the shockwave could have crushed the school.
But that's just my guess, I make no claim to being an expert on weaponry.
User avatar #1502 to #796 - techketzer (09/12/2012) [-]
You're absolutely right with that.
It's like dropping a building on a guy, doesn't matter where you hit him at all.
User avatar #1101 to #704 - thatsfunnyjunk (09/12/2012) [-]
One was for the center of their navy, the other the center of their army.
User avatar #1501 to #1101 - techketzer (09/12/2012) [-]
Doesn't justify dropping nukes on inhabited cities in any way.
#610 to #61 - mrbrianlolz (09/12/2012) [-]
Not only that but we warned them before we nuked the first city, we offered peace after the first city. Yet they still refused to surrender.
User avatar #66 to #61 - techketzer (09/11/2012) [-]
Nothing justifies the nuclear annihilation of hundreds of thousands of civilians.
User avatar #88 to #66 - tonyxx (09/11/2012) [-]
What about the Chinese civilians they slaughtered by the millions? or does that not count?
User avatar #93 to #88 - techketzer (09/11/2012) [-]
Of course it counts! Why would it not!?
But do you really think wiping out 150.000 - 250.000 civilians is the right thing to do as an answer?
When does the slaughter ever stop?
User avatar #96 to #93 - tonyxx (09/11/2012) [-]
Ah your right, we shoulda just given them a slap on the wrist and say " don't slaughter people"
User avatar #182 to #96 - commiecomrade (09/11/2012) [-]
Wrong person to respond to.
User avatar #229 to #182 - tonyxx (09/11/2012) [-]
User avatar #109 to #96 - techketzer (09/11/2012) [-]
No, you should have got the ones responsible for those crimes, not innocents.
Actually, "you" should have helped the Chinese do so, it were their people getting slaughtered after all.

By your logic Japan still owes you two nuclear bombs into US cities.
That's what I mean when calling for the slaughter to stop.
User avatar #160 to #109 - ccamp (09/11/2012) [-]
also the original plan was to not drop the bomb on civilians but on military bases
User avatar #230 to #160 - techketzer (09/11/2012) [-]
They were dropped on military targets.
Problem is, they were a little oversize in yield, so they killed a ton of civilians, too.
User avatar #159 to #109 - wtfyourhigh (09/11/2012) [-]
We also warned them and told them we will drop nuclear bombs if they didn't surrender.
User avatar #228 to #159 - techketzer (09/11/2012) [-]
So announcing a war crime makes it okay?
Damn, Hitler should have known that, Nazis would have a way better reputation today.
User avatar #233 to #228 - wtfyourhigh (09/11/2012) [-]
So you compare genocide, to dropping a nuclear war head?
User avatar #241 to #233 - techketzer (09/11/2012) [-]
I was talking about war crimes, not genocide.
Warsaw, not Auschwitz.
User avatar #245 to #241 - wtfyourhigh (09/11/2012) [-]
We head the full right to.
User avatar #253 to #245 - techketzer (09/11/2012) [-]
The right to slaughter >150.000 civilians?
You had not. There is no such thing.
User avatar #801 to #245 - ilovehitler (09/12/2012) [-]
You're an idiot. Tell me, what gives any human being the right to decide who gets to live and who gets to die?
Were they horrible to the chinese? Yes. Do I think the bombs were the quickest means to an end? Yes.
But never confuse that with us having the right to choose who gets to live.
User avatar #1352 to #109 - meganinja (09/12/2012) [-]
We did help the Chinese, we cut off trade with Japan, which caused the to attack us. Two wrongs don't make a right, but leveling two cities is better than having the two countries fight to the last man, woman, and child until one nation is completely eradicated. The Japanese weren't going to surrender otherwise.
User avatar #1373 to #1352 - techketzer (09/12/2012) [-]
With the Red Army converging on them, hell yes they were going to surrender.
User avatar #1491 to #1373 - meganinja (09/12/2012) [-]
The Red army only started fighting on the eastern front after the U.S. assured them that they would have Japan defeated quickly. And even then, they only were interested in taking land, they weren't willing to devote soldiers to pockets of resistance after already losing over 10 million soldiers KIA, and many more MIA to Germany. The Russians simply weren't interested enough in Japan to lose more troops to take it.
User avatar #1495 to #1491 - techketzer (09/12/2012) [-]
"At the Tehran Conference (November 1943), Stalin agreed that the Soviet Union would enter the war against Japan once Nazi Germany was defeated. At the Yalta Conference (February 1945), Stalin agreed to Allied pleas to enter World War II's Pacific Theater within three months of the end of the war in Europe. The invasion began on August 9, 1945, precisely three months after the German surrender on May 8 (May 9, 0:43 Moscow time)."


"The Soviet-Japanese War of 1945 (Russian: Советско-японская война, lit. Soviet-Japanese War), began on August 9, 1945, with the Soviet invasion of the Japanese puppet state of Manchukuo. The Soviets terminated Japanese control of Manchukuo, Mengjiang (inner Mongolia), northern Korea, southern Sakhalin, and the Kuril Islands. The rapid defeat of Japan's Kwantung Army was a significant factor in the Japanese surrender and the termination of World War II.[6][7]"

User avatar #1497 to #1495 - meganinja (09/12/2012) [-]
1) Don't use Wikipedia as a source, it can be incorrect a lot of times, although I don't see a problem with what you quoted

2) Yeah the Russians contributed. There were hardly any ground troops in the land Russia seized from Japan, but it would have added a bit of a fear factor that they're back to their original size. I was saying that the Russians weren't going to attack the Japanese mainland though, and as long as the Russians and Americans were to scared to attack the mainland, why should they surrender? They hadn't lost a war in over 3,000 years, and weren't ready to ruin their record. Plans had actually been made, and were beginning to be carried out, for every able bodied man, woman, and child of age to take up arms to defend their homeland to the last man standing.

The Americans estimated that to end total Japanese resistance would take the lives of 5 million Americans, 6 years, and the almost complete annihilation of the citizens of Japan. You said earlier (don't feel like getting out the textbook yet) that the Soviets had over 1 million Soldiers that were attacking. The Russians would have never bothered to commit the troops to the mainland after losing over 10 million of their 20 million strong army to the western front. They simply couldn't afford it, as the population itself was already spread very thin without even more losses.

But i'll give you that it was a contributing factor, in that it added a sense of hopelessness, and an inability to escape after the bombs were dropped.
User avatar #1500 to #1497 - techketzer (09/12/2012) [-]
" There were hardly any ground troops in the land Russia seized from Japan"

Completely wrong. The Kwantung army was the absolutely largest the Japanese had and it was defeated/decimated by the Soviets within three days.

Don't berate me for my sources when you don't even give yours and on top fail that hard.
User avatar #1564 to #1500 - meganinja (09/13/2012) [-]
Sorry I was in a rush when I was posting earlier. I meant compared to the homeland where there were massive amounts of militias (IE ground forces) the Kwangtung army was insignificant, but you're right, I should have clarified.

As for my source, it's a series of textbooks and general knowledge. Pretty hard to give a link to a textbook. Sorry.
User avatar #1575 to #1564 - techketzer (09/13/2012) [-]
The Kwantung army was over a million men strong. It was anything but insignificant, in fact, it was Japan's greatest asset in defying the Potsdam agreement.

Source is not the same as link.
Name the book and author, if you've got a camera make a shot of the page.
Or just ditch them if they really state what you said here.
User avatar #1590 to #1575 - meganinja (09/13/2012) [-]
"In March 1945, there was only one combat division in Kyūshū. Over the next four months, the Imperial Japanese Army transferred forces from Manchuria, Korea, and northern Japan, while raising other forces in place. By August, they had 14 divisions and various smaller formations, including three tank brigades, for a total of 900,000 men"

"In addition, the Japanese had organized the Patriotic Citizens Fighting Corps, which included all healthy men aged 15 to 60 and women 17 to 40 for a total of 28 million people, for combat support and, later, combat jobs. Weapons, training, and uniforms were generally lacking: some men were armed with nothing better than muzzle-loading muskets, longbows, or bamboo spears; nevertheless, they were expected to make do with what they had.[25]
One mobilized high school girl, Yukiko Kasai, found herself issued an awl and told, "Even killing one American soldier will do. ... You must aim for the abdomen"


"The Kwantung Army had over 600,000 men in twenty-five divisions (including two tank divisions) and six Independent Mixed Brigades. These contained over 1,215 armored vehicles (mostly armored cars and light tanks), 6,700 artillery pieces (mostly light), and 1,800 aircraft (mostly trainers and obsolete types; they only had 50 first line aircraft). However, the Kwantung Army was far below authorized strength; most of its heavy military equipment and all of its best military units had been transferred to the Pacific front over the previous three years. "


meh, wikipedia is more specific than my book.
User avatar #1589 to #1575 - meganinja (09/13/2012) [-]
It wasn't insignificant, I said it was insignificant COMPARED to the hostile civilians on the mainland which was every able bodied man woman and child in the country.

I don't have a camera, sorry. I'll go get my book in about an hour or so and then post the comment. You have your facts right, but you're failing to recognize how hostile the civilians of Japan were to its enemies. If the Russians started raping their women, they would have fought harder until there was nobody left to fight the Russians
#180 to #96 - commiecomrade has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #463 to #93 - midgetjesus (09/12/2012) [-]
The slaughter kind of stopped when they surrendered and the war in the Pacific ended...
User avatar #485 to #463 - techketzer (09/12/2012) [-]
No, it didn't. Cold war, SU-Afghanistan, Iran-Iraq, Iraq-Kuwait, US-Iraq, US-Afghanistan, US-Iraq 2, all direct consequences of WW2.
The slaughter was started in 1916 and continues until today.
User avatar #507 to #485 - midgetjesus (09/12/2012) [-]
You make a good point, but all of those things are due to the war as a whole, not the singular fact that the US nuked Japan. The war was going to end one way or another, and although calling the use of nuclear weapons a necessary evil sounds bad, it actually caused fewer deaths than a land invasion of Japan would have.
User avatar #533 to #507 - techketzer (09/12/2012) [-]
Actually, that string of violence goes all the way back to 1916 and the US entering WW1.
It's mindboggling how that one decision ****** up the entire 20th century into a single bloodbath and still echoes in bloodshed today.

Yes, but it was not the nukes that made that invasion unnecessary, it was the once again the Red Army deciding the course of the war when they turned on Japan. ******* Soviets and their steamroller of an army.
#1519 to #533 - largenintimidating (09/12/2012) [-]
How in God's name do you see 1916, and specifically the US involvement, as the starting point for the *********** that was the 20th Century?

1914, 1871, 1905. All those dates make more sense. In 1917, the actual year the US joined, the Russian Revolution makes more sense.

The US is probably, in fact, the least responsible of the Great Powers for the *********** . The blame rests almost squarely on Europe and its imperialistic warmongering and insane continental power struggle, that only seems to have stopped in 1945.
User avatar #1578 to #1519 - techketzer (09/13/2012) [-]
I want to clarify one thing: Though this string of violence is not the US governments fault alone in any way, they have caused it.
User avatar #1577 to #1519 - techketzer (09/13/2012) [-]
Easily explained, but lengthy.
In 1916, WW1 was all but over. All sides were practically bankrupt, starved on resources, approval of the citizens was lower than ever, hell, French soldiers mutinied by the companies. All that was left to do was sign treaties to restore the pre-1914 status quo. The war to end all wars? It could have been that way.

Then, practically out of nowhere, the US forsake their policy of isolationism and enter the war, causing the Germans to take Lenin out of his exile in Switzerland, give him a few millions of Mark and send him to Russia to overthrow the Romanov Tsar and get the Russian Army off the back of the Germans.
Desperate and dangerous plan, but it works. Doesn't help the Germans though, they have to surrender in 1919 and get hit with the crushing inhuman cruelty that is the Versailles dictate, robbing them of their gold reserves, forex, industry and even parts of infrastructure and agriculture in one fell swoop while piling incredible debt on them they now have no means left to repay at all.
Hundreds of thousands starve to death, depression, hyperinflation, you know the story, all a perfect breeding ground for the violent socialist regime that finally manifested in Hitler to usurp power, while in the meanwhile formed Soviet Union Stalin succeeds Lenin.
NS Germany invading Poland was a conflict over border territory started in 1919 by Versailles treaty, and that is how WW2 is started. >50 million casualties later, the remaining superpowers USA and USSR seamless go from WW2 into Cold War, China becomes socialist/communist, so do Korea and Vietnam despite US interventionary wars, later the Soviet Afghan war, US agencies funding the Mujaheddin who 9/11 is attributed to, therefore sparking wars in Afghanistan and Iraq yet again.
The first US-Iraq war was a direct consequence of the Islamic revolution in Iran against the US-puppet Schah and the deal with Saddam Hussein leading to the Gulf War and Iraq's invasion in Kuwait.
#1580 to #1577 - largenintimidating (09/13/2012) [-]
Firstly, how does returning the 1914 status quo solve the problem? All you've done is made sure that WWII will happen for the same stupid reasons WWI did once Europe decides it wants power more than peace again.

The US did not forsake isolationism out of nowhere. The Germans resumed Unrestricted Submarine Warfare and promised Mexico land in America if they helped Germany, neither of which are the actions of a nation about to give up and negotiate for peace. More importantly, the Russian Revolution began before Lenin returned to Russia, and the assertion that he was funded by Germany has little to no evidence, especially considering he was a minor figure living in Switzerland, whose main support was from a small party in Kerensky's new Provisional Government.

Furthermore, in April 1917, when the US joined, contrary to looking for negotiations, both sides were escalating the war. The French Nivelle Offensive, which caused the mutinies, was already scheduled before the Americans joined. American involvement did not make WWII any more a probability than a negotiated peace, creating a peace in which Germany was unsatisfied and angry, as opposed to Germany, Britain and France all being unsatisfied, each with old and new grievances that still required absolving by any means necessary. Or alternatively, the respective powers would have continued as doggedly as they had after the supposedly unbearable years of 1915 and 1916 until one side was just as utterly beaten, except that side would likely have been the conservative imperialistic Austro-German side instead of the liberal imperialistic Anglo-French side influenced by an anti-imperial Woodrow Wilson.

Another settlement which would have failed. There was no way to create one that would not, as no matter what it was, someone would be unsatisfied.
User avatar #1586 to #1580 - techketzer (09/13/2012) [-]
How does ending the war bring peace? Is that really what you just asked?

Oh, but it is. Negotiations have to be made from the position of highest strength possible. Any government willing to negotiate peace treaties or even surrender first shows and flexes muscles to get better terms.
That also very nicely explains the divergence between military command aiming to do exactly that and the soldiers thinking they have bled enough.

There is no way a progressive, educated and wealthy nation like pre-1914 Germany falls victim to a socialist dictatorship. Versailles dictate turned Germany effectively into a backward, bitterly poor third-world country and isolated it on an international scale, the prime victims of socialist regimes. To quote French major general Ferdinand Foch: "This is not Peace. It is an Armistice for twenty years.".
What a prophet, eh?

There is no way one can impose such a monstrosity as Versailles dictate on a nation out of a situation of stalemate.
And who tipped the 1916 stalemate? There you have your answer.
US intervention in WW1 is the original cause of WW2. All that happened afterwards until 1939was reaction to Versailles dictate.

Whether the Germans funded Lenin or not is besides the point. They returned him to Russia out of necessity brought upon the the US offensive. We know how it played put and how many million lives it cost.

Unsatisfied governments are irrelevant when they tremble before the wrath of irate citizens. And yes, with companies collectively going into mutiny, that was exactly the scenario in 1916.
#1588 to #1586 - largenintimidating (09/13/2012) [-]
You're very fixated on the French army mutinies in 1917:

They were not, in fact, as widespread as one would think, in no way threatened to collapse the French military, and, most importantly, the soldiers' grievances were addressed. None of the methods of placating them included peace feelers.

Furthermore, there is no need for Nazi Germany to rise for a Second World War to happen if you have a negotiated settlement. Instead of being replaced by revanchism over the First World War, the underlying tensions that sparked WWI will work as a catalyst for the second time. If nothing is resolved by Round One, Round Two becomes inevitable.

Once again; American intervention in no way acted as the catalyst for the 20th Century being a bloodbath of insane proportions. Europe's long-standing rivalries and general propensity for violence were what assured the bloodbath of both world wars.
User avatar #1607 to #1588 - techketzer (09/14/2012) [-]
US intervention led to Versailles. Versailles led to WW2.
I don't understand how one can argue against a causality so evident.
#1611 to #1607 - largenintimidating (09/14/2012) [-]
I'm not arguing with that assertion, which is true. I'm arguing with the assertion that without US intervention WWII, the Soviet Union, the Sino-Japanese War and other bloodbaths would not have happened, which is untrue.

The first quote only illustrates that the Americans were the only rational voice at Versailles. A negotiated peace without them would thus have been even more likely to leave both parties angry and unsatisfied instead of one, as both were still ruthlessly intent on pursuing their war aims.

Once again, not arguing Versailles didn't cause WWII as we know it. With a negotiated peace, Alsace-Lorraine would likely have still stayed as a territorial sticking point, along with the Balkans and Eastern Italy instead of being switched for Poland and Czechoslovakia.

Last statement; still not arguing with that. Versailles caused WWII as we know it, but WWII would have happened, US intervention or not.
User avatar #1606 to #1588 - techketzer (09/14/2012) [-]
Yes, with a negotiated peace treaty, Germany would most probably not have fallen into socialist dictatorship.
What they got, however, was Versailles dictate.

"In his book The Economic Consequences of the Peace, Keynes referred to the Treaty of Versailles as a "Carthaginian peace", a misguided attempt to destroy Germany on behalf of French revanchism, rather than to follow the fairer principles for a lasting peace set out in President Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points, which Germany had accepted at the armistice. He stated: "I believe that the campaign for securing out of Germany the general costs of the war was one of the most serious acts of political unwisdom for which our statesmen have ever been responsible."[41] Keynes had been the principal representative of the British Treasury at the Paris Peace Conference, and used in his passionate book arguments that he and others (including some US officials) had used at Paris.[42] He believed the sums being asked of Germany in reparations were many times more than it was possible for Germany to pay, and that these would produce drastic instability.[43]"

"French historian Raymond Cartier states that millions of Germans in the Sudetenland and in Posen-West Prussia were placed under foreign rule in a hostile environment, where harassment and violation of rights by authorities are documented.[55] Cartier asserts that, out of 1,058,000 Germans in Posen-West Prussia in 1921, 758,867 fled their homelands within five years due to Polish harassment.[55] In 1926, the Polish Ministry of the Interior estimated the remaining number of Germans at less than 300,000.[citation needed] These sharpening ethnic conflicts would lead to public demands to reattach the annexed territory in 1938 and become a pretext for Hitler′s annexations of Czechoslovakia and parts of Poland.[55]"

Poverty and breakdown of structure plus a future conflict.
Look at it any way you like, but Versailles is nothing else than the blueprint to WW2.
User avatar #1605 to #1588 - techketzer (09/14/2012) [-]
Yes, because they are incredibly important to understand the situation.

"On or about 8 June the military authorities took swift and decisive action: mass arrests were followed by mass trials.[3] Those arrested were selected by their own officers and NCOs, with the implicit consent of the rank and file.[1] There were 3,427[1] conseils de guerre (courts-martial), at which 23,385 men were convicted of mutinous behaviours of one sort or another;[3] 554 men were sentenced to death;[1] 49 men were actually shot;[1] and the rest sentenced to penal servitude.[3] In 1983, research by Pedroncini documented 2,878 convictions to hard labour and 629 death penalties. According to Pedroncini, only 43 executions were carried out and can be solidly documented. The lack of rigor in repressing the mutinies provoked adverse reactions among some of the French Army's divisional commanders.[8] General Pétain and French President Raymond Poincaré, on the other hand, made it their policy to mend rather than to aggravate the French Army's morale."

"Whatever the figure, along with the deterrent of military justice, General Pétain offered two incentives: more regular and longer leave; and, at least for the time being, an end to grand offensives – "until the arrival of tanks and Americans on the front".[1] Pétain still launched limited attacks with massive artillery pounding on a few German strongholds, like fort La Malmaison, which were taken with minimal French casualties."


The mutinies were crushed with force, not addressed and debated out of existence.

It was the tip of an iceberg, the beginning of the end. ~25.000 soldiers deserted and mutinied against their command for putting them into a war they could not win.
As the quote above shows, it was promises of "Wunderwaffe" and US intervention that kept them fighting instead of rebelling.
#1612 to #1605 - largenintimidating (09/14/2012) [-]
Mutinies or not, WWII was going to happen with or without intervention.

I'll concede that the war may have ended earlier without US intervention, but it doesn't change the fact that US intervention only changed how the bloodbath happened, not caused it.
#1587 to #1586 - largenintimidating (09/13/2012) [-]
Returning to the 1914 status quo, which would have been impossible (see both sides' rejection of Wilson's "peace without victory" and repeated refusal to send out proper peace feelers), does not bring peace. It brings an armistice. It's a temporary agreement that the respective alliance blocks will try again later, with better weapons, since they were unable to solve their issues this time around.

The Germans never had an intent of sending peace feelers to anyone except the Russians after the February Revolution. They were going to prosecute the war in the Wets to the bitter end for the same reason the Brits and French were; they had lost too much for it to end in a stalemated negotiation. It wasn't until their armies were collapsing and their people literally overthrew the government that the Germans agreed to negotiation, and the collapse of the German armies was the result of American intervention, without which the 1918 German offensive would have still ended in a stalemate instead of a full-on reversal. The German people likely would have fought on if only one condition had been fulfilled, but since they were both clearly losing and starving at the same time, peace came about.

That quote by Foch? He said it was an armistice because he thought the Allies were being too lenient with the Germans.

The tipping of the stalemate hastened the end of the war by clearly giving one side the edge, instead of leaving them both at relatively equal strengths, hammering at each other until forced by casualties and cost to negotiate a peace that was unsatisfying to both sides and left both with the capability to wage the war again.

The Russian Revolution was going to happen without Lenin. It happened without Lenin. The Petrograd Soviet and Provisional Government were never going to co-exist; all Lenin did was speed up the descent into Civil War, and thus speed up the end of the war with Germany, which then speeded up the end of the war in the West.
User avatar #1604 to #1587 - techketzer (09/14/2012) [-]
You're making this awfully easy for yourself. So what exactly were the great underlying issues? What would have made all of Europe choose war over peace once again?
You Americans seem to think we Europeans are nothing but a bunch of warlike savage tribesmen currently on each others throats.
I can guarantee you though, we love life and peace just as much as you do.

The German government and generals didn't. You completely misunderstand their role in this war. But as I said, when actively opposed by the collective citizenry, they become irrelevant. Again, it's the mutinies that are perfectly illustrating what would have happened.
Bottom line: WW1 was not sustainable. Even with hardliner governments and generals having total control over their respective populace, the nations war efforts would have crumbled one by one. WW1 would have ended in a stalemate with or without negotiations.

Yes, Foch wanted to completely cripple and destroy Germany so they could not fight back against that monstrosity that is Versailles dictate.
His quote perfectly illustrates two things: the cruelty of Versailles not just being a German imagination, and the ruthlessness of the Entente when it came to destroying their enemy even after surrender.

"hammering at each other until forced by casualties and cost to negotiate a peace that was unsatisfying to both sides and left both with the capability to wage the war again. "
You contradict yourself. If they are forced to negotiate a peace they do not want it means they have no more capability to wage war.
If they are left with the capability to wage war, they are not forced to negotiate a peace they do not want.

Fact is, Lenin took over and history took a turn for the worst.
Without the US intervening, Lenin would most probably have died in his exile and Russia would have gotten another chance.
Again, I'm not saying the US are at fault, only that their intervention was the cause.
#1610 to #1604 - largenintimidating (09/14/2012) [-]
Lenin was headed for Russia before the US even intervened, his train being approved 6 days before the US declared war. US intervention in no way affected the outcome in Russia, even in 1919 when US troops took Vladivostok and the Communists still won. Once WWI began and the February Revolution got underway, the Soviet Union was going to happen, Americans or not.

The capability to wage war here does not mean the capability to continue waging the war, but instead the capability to rebuild and rearm the military to war-making status, as Germany did when Versailles was cast aside in the 30s. In a negotiated peace, both sides would rearm from a strong base, instead of one side (Germany) rearming from essentially nothing.
#1608 to #1604 - largenintimidating (09/14/2012) [-]
The underlying issues for WWI included such things as nationalist aspirations by ethnic groups in the Balkans and Austria-Hungary, an increasing current of nationalism in Germany, Britain, Russia and France, the constant power struggle of Europe over dominance of each other, the rapid increase in German power since 1870 that included whipping up a virulent wave of French revanchism by annexing Alsace-Lorraine, the continued collapse of the Ottoman Empire.

None of those issues are resolved by a return to the 1914 status quo, and a negotiated peace leaves governments and people on both sides unsatisfied with the result. For both sides, it becomes "10 million people dead for minor changes? This is ridiculous." As for what made all of Europe choose war over peace again? The same things as in our timeline; time and anger. Those unresolved issues still need to be dealt with, and eventually people's memories of the war will no longer be a deterrent against the national desire for resolution and promises of a different war, one where new technology will bring victory quickly.

As for "Americans seem to think we Europeans are nothing but a bunch of warlike savage tribesmen currently on each others throats," I am in fact European, and have thus studied more than my fair share of European history. Europeans are not savages, but the last 70 years have been the first time in European history that we have not had a continent-wide explosion, or even Great Power war, for this long due to having less say over our matters, nuclear weapons, and having so comprehensively destroyed ourselves in 1914-1945 that the idea of killing for your country no longer inspires Europeans to the extent it did back then. Of course we love life and peace, but there's no denying we have a long history of destroying both.

No. WWI was not sustainable, but there was no way that it would end war, and there's no way that a lack of US intervention would have prevented the Soviet Union or WWII.
User avatar #547 to #533 - midgetjesus (09/12/2012) [-]
You seem to know a lot more on the topic than I do, so I'll take your word for it. It's really a pleasant surprise to find someone that's willing to support their arguments with facts and history rather than "lolz ur a fag" though so thumbs for you :)
User avatar #560 to #547 - techketzer (09/12/2012) [-]
Don't do that. Always question and research yourself. You wouldn't believe how easily one is fooled otherwise.

"It's really a pleasant surprise to find someone that's willing to support their arguments with facts and history rather than "lolz ur a fag" though so thumbs for you"
That is a wonderful compliment. Thank you very much!
User avatar #186 to #93 - commiecomrade (09/11/2012) [-]
It was either that or Operation Downfall which would result in the deaths of countless Americans and Japanese, both military and civilians. They were training women and children to hide under the beaches strapped with mines.

Also, the Tokyo Fire Bombings killed at least 124,711 people, injured a million, and left a million homeless. You don't care about that, though.

Operation Downfall had a projected 1 million casualties for the US alone. Many more casualties on the Japanese side were expected.

The slaughter never stops. You can burn parts of forest to prevent huge wildfires, though.
User avatar #226 to #186 - techketzer (09/11/2012) [-]
"You don't care about that, though."
What makes you even think that?

Yes, that war would leave heaps of corpses on both sides. Didn't stop the US from provoking Japan though, so they must have been okay with that. Root of the whole madness, if you think about it.

Burning civilians to spare your invasion forces, what's that called again? Oh yeah, terrorism. How these people can speak of honour and not choke to death on their own words, I will never know.

"You can burn parts of forest to prevent huge wildfires, though."
You're insane.
User avatar #409 to #226 - Fgner (09/12/2012) [-]
I'm going on a limb and saying you are a dumbass with his head so far up his ass he has no clue how the real world works.

You are often given a choice between killing a dozen or killing a thousand. The 150k we killed at H and N was nothing relative to what the Japanese did to China, nothing relative to what the Germans were doing, nothing relative to what WOULD have happened if we took the alternative. We chose the lesser of the evils you twat.

By the way, US didn't provoke Japan. Japan was committing horrific war crimes by raping and slaughtering Chinese innocents and enslaving anyone who couldn't fight back as sex slaves for their soldiers. Chinese begged us for help, so we stopped trading with Japan and told them to stop or we'll continue to have them cut off. But instead of saying "okay, we'll stop, we were bad." they decided to attack us. A country a couple dozen times bigger and stronger.

What exactly is an invasion force? Last time I checked innocent US civilians were drafted against their will. That "invasion force" was unwilling volunteers that HAD to be their, not WANTED to be there. If we went inland, those "civilians" would have quickly strapped bombs to their chest and started charging with pitchforks. It would have been God Damn bloody.
User avatar #453 to #409 - techketzer (09/12/2012) [-]
Those were over 150.000 human beings you're so casually dismissing here.
Also, by that logic it would have been okay to nuke a small US city if it had stopped the Iraq war. That's just nonsense.

I am well aware of the Japanese crimes of that time. Does not excuse the American ones in any way, though.
Oh hell yes, the US cornered the Japanese until they thought attacking " A country a couple dozen times bigger and stronger. " was preferable to the status quo.

"That "invasion force" was unwilling volunteers that HAD to b"
Do you even think what you're writing or are you just hitting random keys?
User avatar #701 to #453 - Fgner (09/12/2012) [-]
No, because nuking a small US city would lead to a large-scale nuclear war, not the surrendering of the U.S. The casualties of that situation would be ~a billion if I were to estimate.

American crimes? We were at war. Relative to anyone else we were pretty freaking kind at war. Still are. Fire bombings, yeah, that was pretty sick. But everyone did it back then. It's not like we were any worse than EVERYONE else. Included Austria. So don't attack us. Compared to tactics of war employed in WWI and others in WWII a nuclear bomb is pretty kind as well. Cancer, radiation burns, or sudden vaporization sure beat burning to death in your wooden house knowing that nobody will come (or even try to) save you or your loved ones.

They violated a treaty when they built massive battleships to wage war on the U.S. Combined with the whole "China is begging for help" thing, we decided to CUT OFF TRADE. Read that sentence for a second, cut off TRADE. We didn't attack them, we didn't corner them, we cut off trade to steel and iron and such until they went back into the terms of our treaty (dismantle some oversized warships). They decided to attack us instead. That gives us a complete excuse for going to war. What were we supposed to do? Wave the white flag and give them their supplies to build big ships to come kill us with?

And yeah, you obviously don't know anything about the U.S. in WWII though.
Forced draft based on a lottery system in times of war where we didn't have enough troops. Almost all countries had/have that. What do you think they're going to do? "Oh we're all out of troops, better just hope they don't attack us now! That wouldn't be fair!"
User avatar #1360 to #701 - techketzer (09/12/2012) [-]
So you mean nuking a country without nuclear weapons themselves is ok, but nuking someone who can answer in kind isn't?
Dude, your morals are like Spongebob. Stupid, oddly colored and full of holes.

"a nuclear bomb is pretty kind as well."
I refuse to take wild guesses what is worse, firebombing or nuking inhabited cities. Both are wrong, despicable and repulsive war crimes.

Yes, the cut off in trade was justified, if not exactly the most prudent course of action.
You forget Japan was just supposed to open the gate for the US to enter the war against Germany in order to protect their investments in Britain and France.
Thing is, the US also sold weapons to Japan's enemy China. By international law, that is an act of hostility. Try weaseling out of that.

I know exactly what a draft is, I was drafted myself not too long ago.
I was merely pointing out that "unwilling volunteers" is just as much nonsense as "living corpse" and you failed twice to recognize that. lol.
User avatar #1456 to #1360 - Fgner (09/12/2012) [-]
Let's see your source for "by international law, that is an act of hostility."

And my morals are full of holes? You do realize you just compared nuking one country to end a war and save millions of lives to having a nuclear holocaust across the world killing well over 1/7 the human population for no reason, right? And then you say that we shouldn't have given China weapons, even though if we didn't we wouldn't have gotten involved, and Japan would have easily conquered a large majority of Asia, murdering many more than the Pacific Theatre ever did. And you say that you'd rather us not have nuked Japan, even though the only viable alternative to it, would be to multiply the death toll by factors over 10 on both sides.

You live in Austria, you are not drafted like U.S. soldiers were 50 years ago. Before 1973 (i think) if we needed soldiers, we could force men under the draft to go to war. And it's US law that all able bodied men MUST sign the draft or go to prison and pay a fine something like 500k. ~10% of the army was inducted this way. It's not like they joined the army, "gonna kill me some Nazi's and Japs!" Dumbass.
User avatar #1489 to #1456 - techketzer (09/12/2012) [-]
I will not read through all of the Geneva Conventions to find that one single paragraph.
Which means I have to drop my claim. Well played, man, well played. :/

That it was conceived as as a hostile act and breach of neutrality however shouldn't be too far a stretch of imagination. Apart from that, US volunteers actively fought the Japanese forces in China.
I did never even say it was bad or the US shouldn't have because I don't make these evaluations, all I said was that it was a provocation against Japan and escalated into a full blown war, which is nothing but fact.

" You do realize you just compared nuking one country to end a war and save millions of lives to having a nuclear holocaust across the world killing well over 1/7 the human population for no reason, right? And then you say that we shouldn't have given China weapons, even though if we didn't we wouldn't have gotten involved,"

I did not. I am only responsible for what I say, not for what you understand.

"only viable alternative to it, would be to multiply the death toll by factors over 10 on both sides. "
Wrong. Japan surrendered because the Soviets turned on them with an army of 1,5 million men and ten-thousand tanks and artillery pieces, not because they lost two harbor cities.

"Conscription is the compulsory enlistment of people in some sort of national service, most often military service."

That's exactly what happened to me. I wasn't sent to war, thank the gods, but I was conscripted all the same.
"It's not like they joined the army, "gonna kill me some Nazi's and Japs!" "
Don't you dare denying there were heaps and loads of those guys as well.
User avatar #1496 to #1489 - meganinja (09/12/2012) [-]
As I said earlier, the Russians deployed that many forces to the area, but they weren't really willing to commit them to die. They were used simply as a "don't **** with us, look how many soldiers we have" even though Japan would have seen right through that. And if you can't put two and two together about Japan surrendering days after the second bomb was dropped, I don't know what's wrong with you.

There are SO many horrible things that the United States has done in its existence. Why you think this is important, I don't know. If you want something from the WWII era, why not pick the Dresden bombing, or unless you just have a grudge against Americans, the Batan Death March, the Nazi Concentration Camps, the SOVIET concentration camps, the Rape of Berlin, the sieges of Stalingrad and Leningrad, the Rape of Nanching, the Chinese Civil war, the Blitz, the Spanish Civil War, the overthrow of Iran, the Eradication of Jews and other minorities in Germany, or the Winter War of 1939.

America was a good boy in WWII, we hardly did anything inhumane compared to the other large powers involved, so why are you singling us out?
User avatar #1498 to #1496 - techketzer (09/12/2012) [-]
"America was a good boy in WWII"
Oh hell no. Not outside of Hollywood. Half of France still hates you nearly as much as the Germans for bombing first and asking questions later and not caring for getting it wrong.

Why am I talking about the nuclear bombs on Japan?
You may want to check the content again. When I read it, it didn't say Auschwitz or Stalingrad or Warsaw.
I don't have a grudge against Americans and would discuss any of what you listed just the same, but here the bombs are the topic, aren't they?
User avatar #1509 to #1498 - Fgner (09/12/2012) [-]
I've been to France and Germany. Neither of the countries really give a **** . Germans were actually finishing development of their nuclear weapons system, they know they have no room to talk. Of course that's tiny compared to the whole Holocaust thing.

Anyway, the developers of the bombs even admitted they never forgave themselves for what they did, they had no idea what it was capable of. They also said they had no idea if it would even burn up the entire atmosphere, though. So I'd say that just testing the bomb was a bigger dumbass move than anything in Human history, we could have annihalted humanity completely.
#416 to #226 - anon (09/12/2012) [-]

That's not called terrorism.

Terrorism is striking fear into another country to take advantage of them.

It is apparent that you are yet another European hypocrite that puts all the blame on the American countries while your continent single handedly ruined the continent of Africa and most of the Middle East.
User avatar #433 to #416 - techketzer (09/12/2012) [-]
"Terrorism is the systematic use of terror, especially as a means of coercion. In the international community, however, terrorism has no universally agreed, legally binding, criminal law definition.[1][2] Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those!! violent acts which are intended to create fear!! (terror), are perpetrated for a religious,!! political!! or, ideological goal; and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians)."


It fulfills all the criteria.
I'd say dropping nukes on inhabited cities is among the worst kinds of terrorism there is, when you consider the radiation.

It doesn't even matter who I am. Who I am changes nothing about the bombs.
User avatar #401 to #226 - bothemastaofall (09/12/2012) [-]
As a warleader, I would rather have millions of innocents on the enemy side die than lose one of my men and have to write home to his family about how he died, and think what could have been done to save him
User avatar #404 to #401 - bothemastaofall (09/12/2012) [-]
but im not a general
User avatar #421 to #404 - techketzer (09/12/2012) [-]
Thank the Gods for that.
User avatar #706 to #421 - Fgner (09/12/2012) [-]
I'll have to agree with you there. The goal of a general should be to save as many people as possible, with an emphasis on the innocent. I like how old empire war was conducted. Collateral was rare, usually only soldiers got killed. If I were to give it a number I'd say saving two innocents is worth losing one soldier. But that's assuming it's a rare occurance and I have a large pool of soldiers.
User avatar #1362 to #706 - techketzer (09/12/2012) [-]
That is complete nonsense. One cannot buy or sell human lives. People are not a resource.
User avatar #1447 to #1362 - Fgner (09/12/2012) [-]
You are a master troll.
User avatar #1450 to #1447 - techketzer (09/12/2012) [-]
Sometimes, yes.
Not here, though.
User avatar #1459 to #1450 - Fgner (09/12/2012) [-]
User avatar #844 to #226 - commiecomrade (09/12/2012) [-]
"You don't care about that" meaning nobody makes a fuss about the civilians killed in those attacks even though they added up to more than half of the deaths of the atomic bomings.

Provoking Japan? They wanted to invade our homeland and destroy us. They would stop at nothing short of assured destruction to do that. It was in their culture at the time. We responded to the attacks on Pearl Harbor. We were in a war of attrition. What do you think we'd do?

The difference between the bombings and terrorism in the US is that they killed civilians to save so very many more.

I used the metaphor to mean that in certain situations you have to sacrifice life to save more life. In case you didn't know, the process of controlled burns is real: " Controlled burns are reportedly 'the most effective treatment for reducing a fire’s rate of spread, fireline intensity, flame length, and heat per unit of area' according to Jan Van Wagtendonk, a biologist at the Yellowstone Field Station."
User avatar #1372 to #844 - techketzer (09/12/2012) [-]
Because it's not within the topic of the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

You completely misrepresent the situation.
Japan did everything in their power to avoid even just upsetting the US because they knew just how dependent and vulnerable by a simple trade embargo they were.
Up until the point the US froze Japanese accounts, held their ambassadors, issued said trade embargo and started trading weapons with China, which is to be considered an act of hostility according to international law.
Then the Japanese for some reason thought a two fronts war was still preferable to fighting a China backed up by the US, granting the US the entry into the war against Germany they had gambled for so long.
It was a game of politics and interests, as it always is.

******** . The bombs saved nothing. With the Red Army turning on Japan, they would have surrendered all the same. The real reason to drop these bombs was to show some muscles to the Soviets before the war was over.

You cannot ******* honestly compare burning some scrubs and undergrowth to nuking inhabited cities.
You are insane.
User avatar #1478 to #1372 - commiecomrade (09/12/2012) [-]
Sure, it's not within the topic, but it's ONLY the nukes you critics are against. If it was just more firebombing you wouldn't have known about it.

Japan was island hopping right to Hawaii with KNOWN, CLEAR intentions of a war with the US. Unlike you, fortunately, the government was smart enough to realize that eventually there would be a war. Isolationism was strong at the time, so people wouldn't support a war unless we were attacked. Therefore, the US had to allow Japan to make the first move in order to rile up support. Underhanded? Hell yes. But war is never fair.

I cannot believe you'd think that the Red Army could have just come in to save the day, only if you had no idea of Russian and Japanese history. Stalin sent wave after wave of millions of men against Germany, costing more lives in the Eastern Front than any other combined. When you have that level of willingness of sacrifice against an enemy training every last man, woman, and child to die for their country, you'd have quite possibly the most horrific invasion the modern world has ever seen, moreso than Operation Downfall.

Thanks for the repeated ad hominem. It's an analogy. Get over it.
User avatar #1494 to #1478 - techketzer (09/12/2012) [-]
You're playing a game of guessing. There is no way in hell you could know what I do or do not know. Stop that nonsense, will you?
I am not against nuclear bombs, they have their however limited uses.
What I am against is the slaughter of innocents, be it with the sword in crusades, with bayonet in Nanking, with guns in Katyn, with hunger in Ukraine, with phosphorus-bombs in Dresden or with nuclear bombs in Hiroshima.
I don't care who did it, how or for whatever supposedly noble reasons. If the innocent suffer, I despise it.

"Therefore, the US had to allow Japan to make the first move in order to rile up support. Underhanded? Hell yes. But war is never fair."
You mean governments are never fair, sacrificing >2000 loyal soldiers in a gambit to protect their financial interests. But you admit it, and that I have to give you credit for.

You're implying that invasion had to be fought at all. You overestimate the Japanese potential for resistance at that point a great deal. Japan was crumbling under US forces alone even before the Soviets marched against them.
It wasn't losing two harbors that broke their back, it was another army of 1,5 million men declaring war against them. The nukes were plain unnecessary.

There is no analogy between burning undergrowth and burning humans.
User avatar #1508 to #1494 - commiecomrade (09/12/2012) [-]
You're an ideological person in a cynical world. You can't save everyone. This isn't a movie.

Governments can be fair. Some points they are fair, and some points not. War doesn't have rules, only things you shouldn't do lest you get retaliation. I do not admit governments are never fair. That's ridiculous generalization.

The invasion had to be fought. After repeated attempts for peace, Japan was still hostile. It doesn't matter about who could win or lose. The Russians were going to win. It's that your average country surrenders when it knows it is doomed, like Germany did, after their capital taken and leader dead. But every last person was at least trained to sacrifice their lives. It was in their culture.

The analogy holds true. Sacrifice some to save a lot.

Why can't you just complain about Japan's, Germany's, Russia's, or China's atrocities in World War II and throughout history? The loss of life was a hundredfold and there was no moral goal.
User avatar #1572 to #1508 - techketzer (09/13/2012) [-]
Idealistic, not ideological. BIG difference.
And I can't transform the world into an Utopia, true. Still, I want to make it a bit better.

It's not a generalisation, it's a definition. Governments are by definition institutions of monopolised violence, therefore nothing but a shade of violent tyranny.

"But every last person was at least trained to sacrifice their lives. It was in their culture." And losing two harbors was the only thing that made them change 3000 years of self-sacrificial culture within a week and prevented the entire nation from commiting collective kamikaze, is that what you're saying?
******** . How can you even believe that?

There is no analogy. Violence only breeds hatred, desire for revange and further violence.

"Why can't you just complain about Japan's, Germany's, Russia's, or China's atrocities in World War II and throughout history?"
Are you trying to weasel out of this by pointing fingers at others and changing the topic? Last time I checked the content, it didn't say anything about Germany or Russia or China.
User avatar #1579 to #1572 - commiecomrade (09/13/2012) [-]
Right, my bad.

I cannot believe you would think that. Governments are by definition institutions to provide leadership, protection, stability, etc. of the people. Can you honestly call yourself idealistic and believe that the very thing that allows you civilization is nothing but violence?

I can believe it because they were trained for an invasion. Not total annihilation without a fighting chance.

Analogy: "A similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based"
Two things: Dropping atomic bombs, intentionally starting preventative fires.
Comparison: Sacrificing lives to save many more; sacrificing acreage to save much more.

I'm trying to say you're bitching about this primarily because America did it. You don't care about the atrocities other countries committed.
#1583 to #1579 - techketzer (09/13/2012) [-]
"I'm trying to say you're bitching about this primarily because America did it. You don't care about the atrocities other countries committed."

Try to say what you want, believe what you want, I don't even give a damn any more.
I got flamed and baselessly insulted for voicing an opinion, some faggot called me "Nazi lover" because I disagreed slaughtering civilians is morally right. I mean what the **** is going on in that idiot's head? Whatever.

The idiocy and hypocrisy of you people is mindboggling. I'm no stranger to internet culture, imageboards or even ********** , but this is just poor by any standard.

That it turns out to be I was right all along and a simple trip to ******* wikipedia would have done you all a world of good is just the icing on the cake.
Really, I don't even wanna see this anymore.
You faggots can all go to hell collectively.
User avatar #1592 to #1583 - commiecomrade (09/14/2012) [-]
"I ran out of argument. You all are faggots. I quit."

User avatar #1599 to #1592 - techketzer (09/14/2012) [-]
Yes, you all are faggots. You especially.

"I'm trying to say you're bitching about this primarily because America did it. You don't care about the atrocities other countries committed."

You're the one who has to prove his unfounded claim, faggot. Do it. And we'll continue this.
User avatar #1601 to #1599 - commiecomrade (09/14/2012) [-]
Haha, that's just a side note. Think about it though. What about all the other atrocities other countries commit? Every country in its past has done something horrible.

Anyway, prove I'm a cockloving faggot. I'm enjoying this.
User avatar #1614 to #1601 - commiecomrade (09/14/2012) [-]
I can still agree with you that the atomic bombings of the cities were absolutely horrifying and atrocious acts. So we can share ground there.
User avatar #1603 to #1601 - techketzer (09/14/2012) [-]
I don't care for Hiroshima and Nagasaki because the US did it, I care because civilians and innocents were killed.
The same goes for Nanking. The same goes for Dresden, Katyn, Warsaw, Auschwitz, Kolyma, My Lai and all crimes against defenseless, innocent victims you could possibly name. And hell yes, 9/11 is among them, too.
I don't care about countries or wars, the people of this world are more important to me. Without them, there are no countries, there is no society.
A crime against innocents is a crime against us all because who the hell would guarantee us we're not the next in line?

Meh, I can't prove you're a faggot any more than you can prove I'm a US-hater.
User avatar #1581 to #1579 - techketzer (09/13/2012) [-]
That is not the definition of government. A government without the monopoly of violence is not a government at all.
Believe it or not, it is true. I couldn't call myself idealistic if I believed in the forceful coercion of people and the systematic violation of their rights and freedoms.

"Japanese leaders had always envisioned a negotiated settlement to the war. Their prewar planning expected a rapid expansion and consolidation, an eventual conflict with the United States, and finally a settlement in which they would be able to retain at least some of the new territory they had conquered.[20] By 1945, Japan's leaders were in agreement that the war was going badly, but they disagreed over the best means to negotiate its end. There were two camps: the so-called "peace" camp favored a diplomatic initiative to persuade Joseph Stalin, the leader of the Soviet Union, to mediate a settlement between the Allies and Japan; and the hardliners who favored fighting one last "decisive" battle that would inflict so many casualties on the Allies that they would be willing to offer more lenient terms."

"By the end of January 1945, the Japanese were suggesting peace terms.[22] These proposals, sent through both British and American channels, were assembled by General Douglas MacArthur into a 40-page dossier and given to President Franklin D. Roosevelt on February 2, two days before the Yalta Conference. Reportedly, the dossier was dismissed by Roosevelt out of hand—the proposals all included the condition that the emperor's position would be assured, if possibly as a puppet ruler; at this point the Allied policy was to accept only an unconditional surrender.[23]"

No intention to die fighting anywhere. No intention to die at all.
I wish I had found that article that when this ********* started. I'd have torn you clowns into shreds and pieces.
User avatar #1584 to #1581 - techketzer (09/13/2012) [-]
Seems I forgot to state the source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_japan#Divisions_within_the_Japanese_leadership

There. In black and white on wikipedia. It's even on ******* wikipedia!

Anyone reading this, what's your ******* excuse for flaming me while not knowing this?
User avatar #1582 to #1581 - commiecomrade (09/13/2012) [-]
You're being wholly ridiculous.

That's what the poitical leaders were saying. The military wanted nothing but war. The military attempts to prevent the emperor from capitulating are an indication that Japan was not about to fold. The U.S. asked Japan to surrender before the dropping of the first bomb, and yet we got no response after the first bomb, thus as a result, we dropped our last atomic bomb on Nagasaki, resulting in Japan's full surrender.

EVEN AFTER Hirohito made the tape of his speech of surrender, to be broadcast the following day, a group of diehard military officers attempted a coup and tried to snatch the tape. General Mori of the Imperial Guards was murdered in the coup (he refused to divulge the location of the tape), the plotters were unable to find the tape, and the coup failed. Japan was in the grip of fanatics, not some "peace" camp.
User avatar #1585 to #1582 - techketzer (09/13/2012) [-]
"By the end of January 1945, the Japanese were suggesting peace terms."

You must be stupid or illiterate.
User avatar #1593 to #1585 - commiecomrade (09/14/2012) [-]
The Japanese leadership was controlled by the military, who did not want peace terms. Please read my post correctly.
User avatar #1600 to #1593 - techketzer (09/14/2012) [-]
"By the end of January 1945, the Japanese were suggesting peace terms."

They had physically, actually and truly offered peace terms.
What do you not understand?
User avatar #1602 to #1600 - commiecomrade (09/14/2012) [-]
Maybe that the military was going to stage a coup if they had been enacted. You think that governments are violence. Why don't you actually apply that and realize that the people making the nice claims are not the government, but the people who "guarantee violence" like you said before?
User avatar #1609 to #1602 - techketzer (09/14/2012) [-]
"Metonymy ( /mɨˈtɒnɨmi/ mi-tonn-ə-mee) [1] is a figure of speech used in rhetoric in which a thing or concept is not called by its own name, but by the name of something intimately associated with that thing or concept."


In this case, "the Japanese" is a metonymy meaning "the Japanese government".
Nice try though, you're clearly intelligent and a quick thinker.
User avatar #1613 to #1609 - commiecomrade (09/14/2012) [-]
I understand what you're saying, it's just that the Japanese government sued for peace, while the people trying to overtake them for control of Japan was the military, who were willing to keep on fighting.
User avatar #282 to #88 - Chuckaholic (09/11/2012) [-]
It doesn't justify American bombing. Two wrongs don't make a right.
User avatar #1016 to #88 - arnoldbusk (09/12/2012) [-]
Didn't you hear what he said? CIVILIANS. I am pretty sure they were the ones who paid the price. That is the problem.
#87 to #66 - quattrocandella (09/11/2012) [-]
no matter what there was gonna be death if they didnt surrendered we just chose the path that let less americans die
User avatar #95 to #87 - techketzer (09/11/2012) [-]
That path was left long before Pearl Harbor even happened.
User avatar #81 to #66 - itsallgucci (09/11/2012) [-]
if we didnt nuke them and make them surrender theres always the chance that japan would have attacked us again killing our civilians..

killing other people civilians>our civilians dying.
User avatar #84 to #81 - techketzer (09/11/2012) [-]
That's not the truth, that's what your government told you afterwards.

"In a 1986 study, historian and journalist Edwin P. Hoyt nailed the "great myth, perpetuated by well-meaning people throughout the world," that "the atomic bomb caused the surrender of Japan." In Japan's War: The Great Pacific Conflict (p. 420), he explained:

The fact is that as far as the Japanese militarists were concerned, the atomic bomb was just another weapon. The two atomic bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were icing on the cake, and did not do as much damage as the firebombings of Japanese cities. The B-29 firebombing campaign had brought the destruction of 3,100,000 homes, leaving 15 million people homeless, and killing about a million of them. It was the ruthless firebombing, and Hirohito's realization that if necessary the Allies would completely destroy Japan and kill every Japanese to achieve "unconditional surrender" that persuaded him to the decision to end the war. The atomic bomb is indeed a fearsome weapon, but it was not the cause of Japan's surrender, even though the myth persists even to this day."


No matter how you look upon it, these bombs were war crimes.
User avatar #89 to #84 - itsallgucci (09/11/2012) [-]
considering japan didnt surrender when we gave them and opportunity before the bombing of hiroshima and before we bombed nagasaki and they still didnt. we had to be sure that america wasnt going to be attacked again. its like having an expensive piece of art in a case, so no one would touch it, then followed by security guard to make sure no one would touch it.
User avatar #98 to #89 - techketzer (09/11/2012) [-]
Japan was crumbling and the Soviet Red Army was about to turn on them as well.
The bombs were not necessary in any way, shape or form.
User avatar #108 to #98 - itsallgucci (09/11/2012) [-]
we still had to confirm that they would attack us again we had to make sure. even though they were loosing and they were about to fall apart they still could have attacked us. you never know. idk if youve ever seen zombieland (cant believe im quoting this movie) rule #2 double tap. even though you've shot them they still could be alive, shoot them again just to be sure.
User avatar #110 to #108 - techketzer (09/11/2012) [-]
Did you just compare Japan to a zombie?
User avatar #443 to #110 - JuliusC ONLINE (09/12/2012) [-]
you are, perhaps THE most retarded human being i have ever seen on the internet, you deserve those red thumbs
User avatar #486 to #443 - techketzer (09/12/2012) [-]
Do you have anything to say worth listening to as well or just that baseless drivel?
User avatar #201 to #110 - itsallgucci (09/11/2012) [-]
i did not at all. your a ******* idiot if you think that.
User avatar #237 to #201 - techketzer (09/11/2012) [-]
"we still had to confirm that they would attack us again we had to make sure."
"rule #2 double tap. even though you've shot them they still could be alive, shoot them again just to be sure."

You did.
User avatar #291 to #237 - itsallgucci (09/11/2012) [-]
i compared our tactic to a quote from zombieland, because your too stupid to see why we bombed japan so i dumbed it up for you, you ******* idiot. i never said Japanese people were zombies. delete your account and kill yourself.
#261 to #98 - techketzer (09/11/2012) [-]
Lol, someone must have misclicked and given me a +1.
Fix it, guys, would you? Looks kinda strange among all the red.
User avatar #70 to #66 - HarvietheDinkle (09/11/2012) [-]
Unless it prevents the annihilation of millions.

It's the lesser of the two evils.
#468 to #70 - nengcaste **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #1453 to #468 - techketzer (09/12/2012) [-]
Thank you. That's exactly what I struggled to say.
User avatar #74 to #70 - techketzer (09/11/2012) [-]
Not even that gives you any right.
User avatar #75 to #74 - HarvietheDinkle (09/11/2012) [-]
Then what would you have done?
User avatar #79 to #75 - techketzer (09/11/2012) [-]
Not dropped the bombs obviously.
Also, not provoked Japan into attacking in the first place.
User avatar #82 to #79 - HarvietheDinkle (09/11/2012) [-]
1) To end the war what would you have done (I didn't ask what you wouldn't have done)

2) What was the provocation?
User avatar #91 to #82 - techketzer (09/11/2012) [-]
1) Waited. Japan was starving in every sense of the word. Their war effort would have collapsed in relatively short time. Captured intel showed they were already consulting about surrendering.
Also, had the Allies not ruled out diplomatic solutions at Potsdam, the entire war would have been shorter and less horrible.

Of course, it's easy to say these things after 70 years of analyzing, isn't it?

2) Freezing Japanese assets and accounts in the US, holding Japanese ambassadors and halting the essential exports of iron ore, steel and oil which Japan was utterly dependent on for no reason at all.
Also weapon trades with China, a nation at the time being at war with japan, which is by the way a definitive hostile action by international law.

Well, actually the reason was to provoke Japan into attacking so the US could finally got to war with Japan's ally Germany.
#101 to #91 - HarvietheDinkle (09/11/2012) [-]
The thing about waiting was that the Japanese government didn't care (the consultation about surrendering, as far as I know, was only as a last resort) much about their civilians; they were prepared to use them as soldiers until the end - and then surrender when all hope was lost. So many were brainwashed into thinking that losing to America was a fate worse than death millions on both sides would have died if there were a land-based invasion (the second most popular option that America was considering).   
But yeah, you're right about the analysis part - not one country had 70 years to think so they acted more hastily.   
Although the freezing of assets, etc. was a hostile (and mostly unjustifiable) action it still didn't warrant an attack that involved the death of people - just maybe diplomatic action on their part.   
Honestly, you have had the best argument I've heard yet, so credit to you for not giving the same old arguments I hear over and over.
The thing about waiting was that the Japanese government didn't care (the consultation about surrendering, as far as I know, was only as a last resort) much about their civilians; they were prepared to use them as soldiers until the end - and then surrender when all hope was lost. So many were brainwashed into thinking that losing to America was a fate worse than death millions on both sides would have died if there were a land-based invasion (the second most popular option that America was considering).

But yeah, you're right about the analysis part - not one country had 70 years to think so they acted more hastily.

Although the freezing of assets, etc. was a hostile (and mostly unjustifiable) action it still didn't warrant an attack that involved the death of people - just maybe diplomatic action on their part.

Honestly, you have had the best argument I've heard yet, so credit to you for not giving the same old arguments I hear over and over.
User avatar #107 to #101 - techketzer (09/11/2012) [-]
Yes, governments tend to do that. The German did, the Soviet did, the Japanese did, the British and French did in WW1, actually, that's common practice if you look at it.

"So many were brainwashed into thinking that losing to America was a fate worse than death" What do you expect from a government desperate to stay in power? Again, that's the most common course of events in such situations.
Partly the Allies' fault in that case due to their Potsdam Declaration agreeing with one another they will accept nothing but total and unconditional surrender.
Turned out to be quite a barrier to an earlier end for nothing but narcissist glory-seeking.

As I said, it's easy to say these things today. At the time, that knowledge would have been invaluable. So yes, mistakes were made and atrocities committed on both sides. Again, as it always is in war.

Yes, diplomatic action would have been the right answer to these hostilities, though Japan was in a terrible spot. Long story short, nobody gave a damn about them, those who did dared not help them or even speak up because there was a damn war going on with Japan's ally ******* over future US allies (also with China and The Soviets were pissed, too), and Japan had nothing to put pressure on the US with.
Next step up the ladder is a military attack, and unfortunately, they decided to go for it.

Thank you for that credit at the end. I really try to be factual and reasonable.
Just because I disagree with the common opinions does not mean I'm some bigot with a hateful personal agenda.
#273 to #107 - anon (09/11/2012) [-]
No, your "story" about the innocent Japanese being forced into military action because of the mean old U.S. freezing their assets is false. The U.S. froze the Japanese assets in response to Japan's blatant aggression in Southeast Asia. In fact, the specific incident that was the proverbial "straw the broke the camel's back," was the Japanese invasion of French Indochina.

The United States didn't cause the war and we had no moral obligations to "civilly" end a war. (if that is even possible) We ended the war in a way that saved as many American lives as possible, even if it did cost the lives of "innocent" Japanese civilians.

Your arguments are flawed in that many of are straight up wrong, or twisted to make them sound like what you want them to sound like. You are particularly annoying me by doing this, so here are some examples.
From your comment number 91
2) Freezing Japanese assets and accounts in the US, holding Japanese ambassadors and halting the essential exports of iron ore, steel and oil which Japan was utterly dependent on for no reason at all.
Also weapon trades with China, a nation at the time being at war with japan, which is by the way a definitive hostile action by international law.

The assets weren't frozen for no reason at all, as I explained above, and Japan invaded China, so it weakens your argument. I will agree with your point about the weapons trading being an act of war, but Japan was the aggressor... so.

As I look over more of your comments, I realized that you seem to think Japan was a completely innocent "bystander" country that was forced into a war they didn't want. That is false. They started the war, and had been building up arms for years.

Oh yes, and just so you can't use the excuse that Japan "was crumbling" under the Soviet Army, etc... The Soviets were at war with them for like 3 months before we nuked. I am out of characters, so I'm going to have to stop typing. Have a good day.
User avatar #328 to #273 - techketzer (09/12/2012) [-]
It was not my intention to portray the Japanese as poor victims and innocent all together, because they sure as hell were not. The atrocities committed by Japanese troops and officers in China are unforgivable and the fact the modern Japanese government denies they ever happened is a disgrace. Also their treatment of POWs needs no mentioning.
But I was under the impression the topic were the nuclear bombs dropped on Japan, not Japanese war crimes, correct me if I'm wrong, so I focused on those.

The US did nothing to avoid the war either, on the contrary, escalating the conflict in any way they could with said weapon trades with China.
"even if it did cost the lives of "innocent" Japanese civilians."
Well, "the wanton destruction of cities, towns and villages, and any devastation not justified by military, or civilian necessity" is a definitive war crime.
Not only is it morally absolutely despicable, it is a direct violation of international law.
Just because there is no practical way to hold the US accountable does not mean they are above the law and can do whatever they feel like.

Neither China nor French Indochina were American business, now were they?
You are absolutely right Japan was a violent aggressor, but up to the diplomatic sanctions were very careful not to even just upset the US in any way.
Looking strictly at those two nations, it was the US to take the first steps of hostility towards the other.

""bystander" country that was forced into a war they didn't want."
Of course not. Though they had maneuvered themselves into a desperate situation and took what they thought was their only option they had avoided for good reason until that point. Doesn't make it any better, I agree.

"The Soviets were at war with them for like 3 months before we nuked."
Not only did you misunderstand me, you ****** up the dates badly.
Soviets started their invasion on 9th of August, 3 days after Little Boy was dropped on Hiroshima and the very same day Nagasaki was nuked.
User avatar #460 to #328 - JuliusC ONLINE (09/12/2012) [-]
considering that the US essentially rebuilt japan into the thriving, populous country with one of the largest economies in the world seems to make it better. Nazi lover
User avatar #473 to #460 - techketzer (09/12/2012) [-]
Oh really? I wasn't aware of that. How many of the dead did it revive?

No, my friend. You seem to love the Nazis; at least you're in favor of their methods.
User avatar #501 to #473 - JuliusC ONLINE (09/12/2012) [-]
when you read a textbook, and see figures like Genghis Khan and Attila the Hun, do you think that the world they lived in is a completely different world than today? No its not, it may be further in the future but it remains the same planet with the same types of people, there will ALWAYS be war, famine, diseas, genocide, slavery and other ****** things
User avatar #516 to #501 - techketzer (09/12/2012) [-]
Those times are long gone, true; though the atrocities are as inexcusable as modern ones.
User avatar #669 to #516 - JuliusC ONLINE (09/12/2012) [-]
werent you the one who argued that those who dont learn from history are doomed to repeat it, so how can you say that **** like that wont happen again
User avatar #1328 to #669 - techketzer (09/12/2012) [-]
How can I not?
#664 to #516 - JuliusC has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #488 to #473 - JuliusC ONLINE (09/12/2012) [-]
you seem to think the world can be full of flowers sugar and sunshine don't you? the world is a ****** ****** place, millions die of disease, starvation and other causes every day. You need to realize that PEOPLE DIE thats that. The world has been full of unjust atrocities by countless forms of government throughout antiquity. Certainly you realize that your government is actually responsible for more wars and deaths than mine. So maybe you should remain quiet, let the past stay in the past and heal instead of reopening old wounds, and CERTAINLY not criticize other countris like yours hasent committed any
User avatar #513 to #488 - techketzer (09/12/2012) [-]
Yeah, and because the world is such a bad place we absolutely have to nuke cities, too, don't we? Do you have arguments, too, or just these empty platitudes?

"So maybe you should remain quiet, let the past stay in the past"
You'd like that, wouldn't you? I say no, **** you. I'm the first to admit horrible mistakes and atrocities were committed in my country and by my fellow countrymen, but that does in no way mean you get to hide your nations mistakes and crimes.

These wounds need to be opened, cleaned and properly stitched before they can heal, if you excuse that metaphor. All of them.
User avatar #639 to #513 - JuliusC ONLINE (09/12/2012) [-]
Wow you are the most bleeding hearted faggot ive ever ******* seen. In case you dont know that was 70 ******* years ago. We don't have to hide the "crime" that we nuked a city , because the rest of the world rightfully believes and acknowledges the fact that that was THE best possible solution to end the war, ive seen your arguments against operation overlord and quite frankly they're ******* ludicrous. According to your standards you would rather have had Millions more die on both sides just because it would have been "fair". Well all is fair in love and war, ever heard of that. Besides, the fireboming of tokyo and dresden were FAR FAR worse. It also is so nice of you to display gratitude to the country that saved yours from TWO extremist governments, Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, without the US (and england) you WOULD not have the freedom to even use the internet so maybe you should stop acting like the US is the greatest butcher of all time and shut your ignorant face. (The spanish killed hundreds of millions during their colonization of the Caribbean and mesoamerica are you going to get all butthurt about that too?)
User avatar #1335 to #639 - techketzer (09/12/2012) [-]
Now that's a pile of ******** if I ever saw one. Fail upon fail upon fail.

" In case you dont know that was 70 ******* years ago."
70 years ago, yeah, so is the Holocaust and the Soviets starving ~10 million Ukrainians to death.
So the people that were killed are back alive now and all is ok, or what is your argument? ******* idiot.

" ive seen your arguments against operation overlord an"
Overlord. Yeah, sure. Fail. Get your **** together, would you kindly?
If you would have paid any attention to what I said you'd have understood by now what I mean with "The path of the lesser evil was left long before Pearl Harbor."

"Well all is fair in love and war, ever heard of that."
I'm sure that was what the Japanese thought in Nanking, too, slaughtering hundreds of thousands of civilians.

Gratitude? Without the ******* US meddling in European matters there would have been no WW2, there would have been no Soviet Russia, even 9/11 and the wars following it are a direct result of the US failing to stay out of WW1 in 1916.
Nice job ******* up the entire 20th century into a single massacre, yeah, and then you want gratitude?

All that **** happened long before either of us were even born, so I owe you nothing.
And if I did, it would sure as hell not be gratitude.

Yeah, point fingers at the Spanish, because that changes everything about the nuclear bombs on Japanese cities, of course.
Had you an attention span longer than a 2x4 lego brick you'd have noticed that hell yes, I do condemn every and any act of aggression and violence.
Though if you care to check the content you may notice the topic isn't exactly the Spanish conquest of the Caribbeans and Americas.
User avatar #1556 to #1335 - JuliusC ONLINE (09/12/2012) [-]
also, as a kind gesture, im not arguing FOR the use of nuclear arms or FOR the death of thousands of people, i don't believe that any large group of people should be annihilated. Im just saying that you are wrongfully judging and condemning an action that was the best possible solution to end the war. Yes the war with japan could have been avoided, but what, at the deaths of millions of chinamen? And we kind of did choose the best option on dealing with the japanese, creating an embargo vs just declaring war was in fact a good idea at the time. However they jumped off of a ******* cliff and went and bombed pearl harbor, which sealed japan's fate. Also (kind of) Nazi Germany could have been avoided by not punishing them so harshly after WW1 but England and more heavily France demanded maximum penalties and Wilson just couldnt persuade them, so thats what happened. As for the middle east, England and the rest of Europe's colonization of Africa and the middle east sparked all the unrest and created the muslim brotherhood (the hand in all modern terrorist activities), and when they left, instead of creaing a government, they just created a dictatorship with a dictator that they could trust to let them do whatever the **** they wanted there.
User avatar #1574 to #1556 - techketzer (09/13/2012) [-]
I find myself agreeing with much of what you said here, though not everything.

As I explained, the US were the prime reason why the Entente HAD to ruthlessly plunder and enslave Germany and actually could do so in the first place.

Also no, the modern unrest and terrorism in the middle east goes back to the Soviet-Afghan war, when US agencies hired tens of thousands of islamic mercenaries to fight the Soviets, Osama bin Laden and his warband among them.
Yes, it's true, believe it or not but bin Laden was on the US payroll in the 80s.
When the Soviets cut their losses and left, the USA did exactly the same, abandoning their former allies in a completely destroyed, havocked Afghanistan with no infrastructure, full of minefields and UXO and in a civil war on top.

That's when the US-founded and financed Mujaheddin turned around and wanted vengeance for being betrayed.
They didn't suddenly become terrorists, they had been terrorists all along and were getting paid for exactly that by the US.
All they did was stopping to terrorizing Soviets and starting terrorizing Americans.

The command structure of all those terrorist organisation? Installed and payed with US money. Their strategists and technicians? Trained by US specialists.
Their radio equipment and everything else not low-tech? Made in USA.
The stinger missiles they are shooting down US helicopters with? Courtesy of the USA.

Don't blame Europe for a conflict the US are responsible for.
That's an idiotic thing to do.
User avatar #1591 to #1574 - JuliusC ONLINE (09/14/2012) [-]
i know ALL about the funding america gave towards the rebels in afghanistan, but that was just arming them, if you look at ALL of the unrest in the middle east, not just the more recent stuff you will realize that there has been unrest in the middle east for well over a hundred years. Why? because european nations were colonizing the **** out of EVERYTHING, even china. The muslim brotherhood was founded against this and its widely believed that the brotherhood was behind the assassination of Ferdinand = WW1 Also im sorry i confused overlord and downfall, my ******* mistake i thought downfall but typed overlord. Also the LOANS? are you ******* serious were responsible for a bankrupt europe because we gave them LOANS?? No, no no no that could not be more wrong, yes we sold them a dick ton of arms in war profiteering, and dont say we should have had laws against that at the time because at that point there was no such thing. We were selling to both sides until the germans (who were getting fewer supplies due to being landlocked) decided to start torpedoing the **** out of our shipping. Yes we may have given and used war BONDS but not Loans, and i dont see how its our fault for giving LOANS/BONDS and europe not having enough money to pay back, thats entirely europe's fault for borrowing money they couldnt pay back (what weve been doing recently =() And (as you mistakenly beleive) the US government is NOT responsible for private industry, at least not as much at that time. Woodrow wilson DID want to relax penalties on Austria and Germany but England and France would not have it, dont say they were ******* forced too because of debt because thats ******** and you know it, they were pissed because of the millions of their boys lost in the trenches. Europe brought WW2 on THEM ******* SELVES, gooday
User avatar #1545 to #1335 - JuliusC ONLINE (09/12/2012) [-]
you dont know **** about history do you? president woodrow wilson was the one trying to appease for lighter convictions on Austria and Hungary after World War I, but NOPE europe just HAD to punish the **** out of them, thrusting Germany into poverty creating the stagnant quagmire ripe for cruel dictators like Hitler to arise. As for the 70 years ago comment, it was LONG before i was born so why should i care? And for the end of your comment, "yes, i condemn every act of violence" what do you? open textbooks and read articles on slaughters and say "THOSE PEOPLE ARE MONSTERS IM GLAD THEYRE DEAD" you just have to let that **** go, in the end you have no power over anything in this world and you have to just accept it for what it is and try to see the good in life instead of being such a pessimist. NTW the japanese were slaying the chinese in the MILLIONS before we entered the war, thats like condemning someone for nuking the nazis
User avatar #1573 to #1545 - techketzer (09/13/2012) [-]
Says the one confusing Downfall and Overlord, lol.

Oh, spare me that ******** . You know why the US entered WW1?
Because in 1916, the war was practically over. French soldiers deserted and mutinied by the companies, England was all but bankrupt, the Russian front had completely broken down. The only thing preventing Germany and Austria from completely overrunning all their enemies was the fact that they were just as beaten and broken as the Entente.
Complete stalemate. The only thing left to do was count the losses, sign treaties saying everything was back to pre-1914, pack up stuff and go home.

That was a huge ******* problem for the US, because that meant they would never see the huge sums of money they had loaned Britain and many of its allies for the war again. So what did Mr. Woodrow ************ Wilson do?
He went on a massive raid and tipped the stalemate.

"president woodrow wilson was the one trying to appease for lighter convictions"
That's a great ******* thing to say when simultaneously calling in the Entente's loans that could realistically only be paid by mercilessly crushing and plundering Germany, isn't it?
So instead of the world realising what a senseless horror war truly is in 1916, we got the foundation for the next, even greater one in 1919, including the dictators, acts of tyranny and following wars that actually last until today.
Nice job breaking it, Woodrow. That man had the opportunity to send the strongest signal against war there ever was and instead opted to turn the entire 20th century into a single bloodbath.
User avatar #318 to #273 - XepicbaconX (09/12/2012) [-]
Hello, that was me (the previous post) so please respond to me if you want to continue debating.
User avatar #336 to #318 - techketzer (09/12/2012) [-]
I just did. Please let us stay mutually respectful, though.
I'm here to trade factual arguments, not petty insults.
#99 to #91 - sirjave (09/11/2012) [-]
Sounds like someone is still a little butthurt from losing WWII
#128 to #99 - techketzer (09/11/2012) [-]
Saddened that it had to be fought at all.
It was completely avoidable.
#83 to #79 - itsallgucci has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #120 to #66 - ImAWizard (09/11/2012) [-]
Gtfo moralfag
#126 to #120 - techketzer (09/11/2012) [-]
Any reason I should even acknowledge you?
User avatar #155 to #126 - ImAWizard (09/11/2012) [-]
not trolling i'm serious
#962 to #155 - torexofthenight (09/12/2012) [-]
Holy hell, I think this is the biggest **** storm ever caused by a single comment. It took me 4 minutes and 57 seconds to reach the end of the purple lines.
#1137 to #962 - cruzslzr (09/12/2012) [-]
how slow were you scrolling? I was gonna read all the comments but then I saw how many there and I said "			****		 that"   
mfw people wanna read it all
how slow were you scrolling? I was gonna read all the comments but then I saw how many there and I said " **** that"
mfw people wanna read it all
User avatar #431 to #66 - JuliusC ONLINE (09/12/2012) [-]
what about the millions of lives on both sides saved in the avoidance of operation downfall
User avatar #461 to #431 - techketzer (09/12/2012) [-]
Didn't need to nuke two cities for that.
User avatar #619 to #461 - LiamNeeson (09/12/2012) [-]
It was their only option at the time.
User avatar #655 to #622 - LiamNeeson (09/12/2012) [-]
There's a lot more defending it than criticizing it... They said it saved upwards of a million lives.
User avatar #1339 to #655 - techketzer (09/12/2012) [-]
"As the United States dropped its atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945, 1.6 million Soviet troops launched a surprise attack on the Japanese forces occupying eastern Asia. "The Soviet entry into the war played a much greater role than the atomic bombs in inducing Japan to surrender because it dashed any hope that Japan could terminate the war through Moscow's mediation", said Japanese historian Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, whose recently published Racing the Enemy: Stalin, Truman, and the Surrender of Japan is based on recently declassified Soviet archives as well as US and Japanese documents."

That's the bit I meant. I find it irritating that you instinctively seek out the opinions of people that were involved and had a strong political agenda over peer-reviewed, scientific research.
User avatar #1504 to #61 - theavatar (09/12/2012) [-]
In all honesty if America didnt drop the bombs Japan wouldnt of stopped attacking The usa. The usa did tell them before hand this was going to happen.
But any way you look at it some one is the bad guy
#464 to #61 - nengcaste **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #786 to #464 - ilovehitler (09/12/2012) [-]
Oh it was terrorism, no denying that. But in the end, it's what we had to do.
The Japanese had such a strong sense of honor, if we had just killed the military, they would have trained the civilians. They would have kept fighting until they had absolutely nothing, and would be left even more devastated.
We did commit terrorism, but we did it so we could end the bloody war.

Terrorism is so often used because it's so effective. The government and military is powerless to the masses, and if you scare them, then the government and military is weak.
#807 to #786 - nengcaste **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #811 to #807 - ilovehitler (09/12/2012) [-]
I didn't say it was good, I just said it's the only way we saw to end the war. There was nobody in the right, there never is in war. Regardless of why you fight or how you fight, you're killing people.

It's my opinion that the Japanese should have struck the west coast with biological weapons. It would have been the best way for them to win. The difference, once again, is their pride. We didn't have that.

Yet oddly enough, they considered that to be unethical, yet not the rape or the sex slaves. Their honor in battle only extended to the warriors.
User avatar #385 to #61 - futuramafan (09/12/2012) [-]
>comparing pearl harbor to the only 2 atomic bombs dropped ever in history on the same country

User avatar #496 to #385 - techketzer (09/12/2012) [-]
Yeah, but it's ok because Pearl Harbor was American and Hiroshima wasn't.

Human life is not a resource, guys. It can't be traded.
User avatar #791 to #496 - ilovehitler (09/12/2012) [-]
From a colder view, it really can be. Every human has a certain worth, and some are worth more than others. Some are more intellectual, athletic, less prone to disease. They are, from a cold a scientific view, worth more to the human species. And if you categorize them, then each one is only worth a specific value, and can be traded.

But the pearl harbor compared to japanese bombing, we took away more values. It's arguable, and likely, that it saved more than it killed, but we can never truly know how history would have turned out.
User avatar #1366 to #791 - techketzer (09/12/2012) [-]
Fine, let me rephrase that.
One cannot treat human life as a resource without turning into a monster and murderer.
How about that?
#175 to #61 - anon (09/11/2012) [-]
Holy **** way to sound like we did nothing wrong.

"America destroys 2 japanese cities"

More like killing 140,000 innocent people along with radiation effects
#607 to #175 - anon (09/12/2012) [-]
If we hadn't nuked them, there would have been much more bloodshed. And those "innocent civillians" would only have been recruited into the war anyway if we had gone with a different strategy. Even with the consequences, nuking them was the best option. It quickly put an end to the war and as said below, saved more lives than it took
User avatar #737 to #607 - nasavvy (09/12/2012) [-]
It couldn't have been settled by sending troops to raid the cities? All innocents had to die? You know the old tale of 2 wrongs don't make a right, that's what america didnt do. Japanese did something wrong lets not get overlook that, something very wrong but you have to admit it does seem kinda "iffy" what america did.
User avatar #771 to #737 - ilovehitler (09/12/2012) [-]
No side was innocent. Nobody.
And I think we didn't send troops because we wanted to test our bombs, which makes it all the worse.
User avatar #783 to #771 - nasavvy (09/12/2012) [-]
I like that first statement of yours. That is the approach everyone should be taking towards this idiotic flame war.
User avatar #1340 to #771 - meganinja (09/12/2012) [-]
we weren't testing our bombs. That's what Los Alamos was for.
User avatar #1390 to #1340 - ilovehitler (09/12/2012) [-]
True, wasn't exactly a test, more like a display of power. I think we wanted the russians to fear us.
#1576 to #1390 - techketzer (09/13/2012) [-]
Halleluja, finally some sense in here.
User avatar #575 to #175 - LiamNeeson (09/12/2012) [-]
I know it sounds terrible, but the nukes saved more lives than it ended. If the war raged on, millions of civilians could have died during a ground assault.
#267 to #61 - zomba **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#349 to #267 - Tailsfan has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #378 to #349 - Fgner (09/12/2012) [-]
Great logic I see,
"Oh, they cut off our trade. Let's not stop doing really bad **** , let's go bomb the **** out of a naval base of a country exponentially bigger and more powerful than we are! That'll show them!"

We took away the bullies toys and told him he'd get them back when he stopped being a dick, and the little ****** kicked us in the balls, so we kicked back. Sounds reasonable.

Oh, and you forgot that China was asking for help because the Japanese were the most brutal, cruel, unforgiving, and sick ******* warriors, and China could barely hold themselves up. They turned women into rape servants, and the children into slaves, and mutilated and tortured the men.
User avatar #776 to #378 - ilovehitler (09/12/2012) [-]
In all honesty, the Japs were much worse than the Nazis.
The Nazis had only the goal of slaughtering the Jews, who were considered to be the reason for everything wrong in Germany. Cruel? Yes. But the difference is that they were about efficiency.
The Japs were just mutilating, enslaving, raping, and the like. They had a sport of tossing babies in the air and impaling them with their bayonets.
User avatar #834 to #776 - Fgner (09/12/2012) [-]
I agree completely.

But one change. The Nazi's didn't just want to slaughter Jews, they wanted a perfect society. The mentally/physically retarded, gypsies, blacks, jews, et cetera were all targetted because they were "impure." The Jew thing was because they were associated with Germanies problems, and gave a common hate for quite a bit of the country and made them more united in their cause (the enemy of my enemy is my friend). It's my belief (although I'm not quite sure of the morality or anything) that if the Germans succeeded in WWII, they would have quickly turned and killed the Japanese, did a societal cleansing (even more massive genocide and the nudering/spading of those with "worse" genes), and we would be living in a much better place. Sick as the Nazi regime was, and as bad as the road to get their was (even though it was much faster than ours), their ultimate goal was actually the goal of all of humanity since we began. A perfect, peaceful, utopian world.
#400 to #349 - grandterskrasao (09/12/2012) [-]
so because we didn't go and say "Hey lets just not do anything about the massacre of Nanking and let Japan conquer all of China, connecting Japan's and Hitler's forces that would completely wipe out all of Europe, and wait till they come beat us up next :)" we're the ones at fault?

AND another thing, didnt the bombings of Japan happen some 60-70 years ago? no body who has any recollection of the war is alive today.. and 9/11 happened 11 years ago. Big difference in time passed. And we also offered a term of surrender to the Japanese, and they said no. Japan had in fact, enlisted every single able-bodied person, man, women, and child, to fight to the death against American troops. So to minimize American deaths, WHICH should be the governments focus anyways, we bombed 2 cities.
User avatar #239 to #61 - dickynix (09/11/2012) [-]
Plus the Japanese killed 250,000-300,000 in Nanking before the war. They were sick ***** .
User avatar #369 to #239 - Psychotic (09/12/2012) [-]
you forgot to mention all the people they raped
#1271 to #369 - butiloveu (09/12/2012) [-]
MFW i get rapped from 2inch
User avatar #257 to #239 - techketzer (09/11/2012) [-]
Ha, there's no doubting that.
#1130 - thehalfanese has deleted their comment [-]
#1141 to #1130 - nightstar (09/12/2012) [-]
I was just about to start scrolling. Thanks for making me think twice.
User avatar #947 - salts (09/12/2012) [-]
we also rebuilt japan afterward ..soooo....yah
User avatar #951 to #947 - ccccmoney (09/12/2012) [-]
And the nukes prevented 100x as many Japanese from dying on the battlefield. And America did this for them AFTER they started attacking us first. We gave them a swift defeat and then helped them back on their feet.

I don't remember many terrorists offering to help us after attaching us.
User avatar #958 to #951 - salts (09/12/2012) [-]
yup yup old america is best america..not that we still don't have the potential to be great weve just been a little lazy in recent years..were working on it tho .. i think
User avatar #955 to #951 - lordofthesea (09/12/2012) [-]
yerps... they tried to surprise attack us with pearl harbor (whether or not we knew it was coming is a concept in doubt, hence "tried"; Regardless of knowing or not, THEY STARTED IT! )
#1149 to #951 - anon (09/12/2012) [-]
Don't think usa helped japan (as well as germany) on its feet just of good will. If they left Japan and Germany like that and demanded some reparations from them they would make an horrible, fatal, mistake like they did after the world war I... after that war Germany was economically devastated which also caused the raise of nazi radical group. Combined with world economical crisis in 1929 Hitler could get to higher political positions and get more support from people. It was simply too dangerous not to help them. They could start another war later. And yea I agree with you at everything else...
#819 - furiousmarshmellow (09/12/2012) [-]
You do realize THEY bombed US first, right?
#774 - thecoolage (09/12/2012) [-]
I've watched the news, talked to people today, and even surfed forums. How is it that FJ keeps assuming we're that demanding for attention for 9/11? I mean, seriously. I live in NEW YORK. I didn't even know it was 9/11 until 3 PM. Hiroshima has an annual ceremony where the whole city prays for the souls of the people who died/were injured in the bombing. Do you see the U.S. doing that? No. Are we making Japan's Hiroshima our bitch? No. Then what the 			****		?   
Am I mad? Yes. Please enjoy the gif.
I've watched the news, talked to people today, and even surfed forums. How is it that FJ keeps assuming we're that demanding for attention for 9/11? I mean, seriously. I live in NEW YORK. I didn't even know it was 9/11 until 3 PM. Hiroshima has an annual ceremony where the whole city prays for the souls of the people who died/were injured in the bombing. Do you see the U.S. doing that? No. Are we making Japan's Hiroshima our bitch? No. Then what the **** ?

Am I mad? Yes. Please enjoy the gif.
User avatar #782 to #774 - I Am Monkey (09/12/2012) [-]
My college is in ******* Manhattan and nobody said a word about it.
#54 - insanefreak ONLINE (09/11/2012) [-]
America killed a ******** of innocents.
Europe killed a ******** of innocents.
Asia killed a ******** of innocents.
Africa killed a ******** of innocents.

... Everyone, beware Australia.
If you don't believe the things I say, read the history.
Egypt used to be a very powerful nation that went to war and had a large amount of slaves, Africa.
Europe.. Seriously? World Wars? Colonies? Crusades?
Asia, same, World War II, the invasion of China, the fight with Russia and Afghanistan, Genghis Khan, and so on, and so on..
America: The modern wars, the a-bombs (and don't spout crap about the Japanese deserved it or not, the bombs were dropped on people living in a nation that decided to go to war, without asking their permission first. If you say their actions were correct, that means that if Iraq decides to drop bombs on the USA now and kill millions, they were allowed to as well.), the massacre of the original Americans..

In short, almost every nation has already massacred thousands of innocents. Welp, I don't know about Australia though, so I'd take care....
#64 to #54 - mahavir (09/11/2012) [-]
Find some dirt on India!! I double dare ya!!
#65 to #64 - insanefreak ONLINE (09/11/2012) [-]
I don't know much about India.. give me a few minutes.

Thank you wikipedia and google!
User avatar #57 to #54 - mmmilovemeth (09/11/2012) [-]
Australians massacred a metric **** tonne of Aboriginies:

#58 to #57 - insanefreak ONLINE (09/11/2012) [-]
Not exactly, if you read carefully you'll notice they're talking about the Australian colonies..

The 'true' Australians have yet to massacre people. The difference is that at that time, they didn't call themselves Australians yet.
#235 - moosewithcameltoe (09/11/2012) [-]
Hold your **** OP. We we in WORLD WAR II. If we invaded Japan we would have lost men more than you could imagine. We were getting our asses kicked even taking over tiny islands for our island hopping technique. Invading an island is one hell of a lot harder than defending it. Japan was the wasp nest of it all too. We would have lost men on a scale you couldn't imagine. Also, we told Japan we had a new weapon and they didn't surrender. We dropped pamphlets telling the citizens that they were about to be bombed hours before we bombed them. They had their chance to leave. And I don't recall getting warned about 9/11. And same goes for the second bombing. We warned them. Of course no body wanted to bomb them but it was to save our troops. They would have done the same if they could. Don't forget about Pearl Harbor.

#TL;DR America warned Japan+ we were at WAR. 9/11 was a terrorist act.
User avatar #760 to #235 - creamNscream (09/12/2012) [-]
But one thing that I always found interesting ,was the fact that they did it to save american lives.

I know they were warned to leave, and they wanted to minimize casualties to civilians, but isn't it saying that the value of an american life is greater than that of a Japanese one?

All life is equal, but we did that to more or less save a bunch of american lives.

Just something I've thought about.
User avatar #1317 to #760 - xxiixx ONLINE (09/12/2012) [-]
During a war, you do value the lives of your country men more than that of your enemies. Thats why its war. If you value'd the enemy the same as your own people, you wouldn't be able to kill them. It's extremely difficult to win a war without acting to preserve your troops.
#878 to #760 - newborn (09/12/2012) [-]
i imagine casualties would have been higher on both sides had we invaded. the only ethics/moral issue i have with the bombing is that we killed civilians, not soldiers. There's a debate to be had about that i'm sure, but i still think we did the right thing anyway, not that it matters now.
User avatar #1161 to #235 - swedz (09/12/2012) [-]
> We we we we we
#240 to #235 - skeedskis (09/11/2012) [-]
You summed up my American history course. Good Job
#1295 - penistar (09/12/2012) [-]
User avatar #1322 to #1295 - princebroken (09/12/2012) [-]
ok then
#1313 to #1295 - stubbyftw (09/12/2012) [-]
#1275 - CollinTB (09/12/2012) [-]
All of you raging back and forth like anybody is actually considering your opinions.
#1258 - theswagmobile (09/12/2012) [-]
< MFW reading the comments.
User avatar #1187 - fuckmerunnin (09/12/2012) [-]
** ************ rolls 711** 911 a tragic day
#1195 to #1187 - fuckmerunnin has deleted their comment [-]
#1189 to #1187 - leuncledoaln **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#1192 to #1187 - mrvolbeat (09/12/2012) [-]
Omg dude, learn your history
User avatar #1198 to #1187 - konradkurze (09/12/2012) [-]
you want a convenience store?
User avatar #466 - superunclesam (09/12/2012) [-]
>The nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a response to an act of terrorism Japan committed on US soil (well, water too).
>We ******* warned them we were going to nuke them, we told them to evacuate.
>Japan refused to even inform their citizens
>Japan was probably just as bad as Germany in World War II
>Read a ******* history book
#1273 - BlahDude (09/12/2012) [-]
I think, deep down, the foundation of the rest of the world's annoyance with the USA is their patriotism. Sure, everyone likes to be patriotic of their country, but there seem to be a high proportion of Americans who take their patriotism overboard, making them sound arrogant, small minded and xenophobic.

America is not the greatest country in the world, it is just an other country on this planet, with it's ups and downs, pros and cons.

Whilst I do think that anyone has the right to mourn any death, including the Americans of 9/11, some Americans use it as an excuse to insult and make other nations out to be evil, and America to be the only righteous country in the world. That's what's bloody annoying and wrong.

Also,, for all those who argue "Hiroshima and Nagasaki were acts of war, so it's not as bad as 9/11", let's see how you react when you are killed in a massacre of innocents, simply because your government decided to go to war with another country, a decision in which you had nothing to do with.
#1309 to #1273 - schutzstaffel **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#1310 to #1273 - anon (09/12/2012) [-]
the japanese government didn't really even choose to go to war. by the time they bombed pearl harbor it would be tactically stupid to attack us but the IJN wanted to get more government funding so they attacked and lead japan into more war. i also feel that the nukes may have saved lives. their may have been more deaths had we not used them. not saying that nuclear warfare is right just that it could be conceived as right
User avatar #1305 to #1273 - randomserb (09/12/2012) [-]
#632 - ronyx (09/12/2012) [-]
Can't compare them, one was during a time of war, the other was an unforeseen act of terrorism. So 			****		 you to whoever thumbed it up.
Can't compare them, one was during a time of war, the other was an unforeseen act of terrorism. So **** you to whoever thumbed it up.
User avatar #641 to #632 - TheWinBot (09/12/2012) [-]
i agree completely, but this is the internet. nobody cares. hurts what's left of my soul.
#517 - onenightstand (09/12/2012) [-]
I think OP post this picture for all the ********** ...

On the other hand, we can't remember the people who died for no reason? Sorry, for respecting them and only talking about it ON SEPTEMBER 11TH! The families lost someone they love for no reason.
#972 - randomlyici (09/12/2012) [-]
Japan mentions it all the time. There are so many goddamn animes where Japan gets nuked by some type of bomb. Code Geas and Akira are just two examples.    
Also, I'm not saying they deserved nukes BUT they did bomb pearl harbor and they did the Rape of Nanking. The Rape of Nanking is one of the most dreadful things that I have ever heard of a country doing to another. Japan doesn't even have the balls to admit they did it. Even after lots of evidence has been presented, they deny it and claim it as anti-Japan propaganda. They don't even teach it in their history classes. I had some friends from Japan do a study abroad at my school. They didn't know what the hell I was talking about when I asked them.
Japan mentions it all the time. There are so many goddamn animes where Japan gets nuked by some type of bomb. Code Geas and Akira are just two examples.

Also, I'm not saying they deserved nukes BUT they did bomb pearl harbor and they did the Rape of Nanking. The Rape of Nanking is one of the most dreadful things that I have ever heard of a country doing to another. Japan doesn't even have the balls to admit they did it. Even after lots of evidence has been presented, they deny it and claim it as anti-Japan propaganda. They don't even teach it in their history classes. I had some friends from Japan do a study abroad at my school. They didn't know what the hell I was talking about when I asked them.
User avatar #982 to #972 - willstu (09/12/2012) [-]
You do realise they attacked Pear Harbour because America was ******* with trade and basically destroying the Japanese ability to claim territory.

But yeah the rape of Nanking was horrendous... not something the Yanks had to get involved with.
User avatar #990 to #982 - randomlyici (09/12/2012) [-]
They retreated out of China because of our "victory". Yes, I do realize it was because of trade and the U.S. and Japan were fighting over the Philippine islands but it was a surprise attack. They did not declare war they just destroyed unarmed civilians and military personnel.
User avatar #1002 to #990 - certifiedidiot (09/12/2012) [-]
Some place I am kinda happy the day of infamy happened, the USA joined the fight, people in Europe needed them to do that, we were god knows what would have happened if the russians beat the crap out of Hitler alone, let alone the changes of the future and the cold war

Of course it was a loss, and you shouldn't value that, I guess you can say in that war, we all made some mistakes
User avatar #1047 to #972 - Lintutu (09/12/2012) [-]
I'm just now hearing of the "Rape of Nanking" myself. So i looked it up and read it. Seriously Japan, the **** ?
User avatar #1091 to #1047 - randomlyici (09/12/2012) [-]
It's intense stuff. If you get really interested you should watch "The Flowers of War". I warn you though, it's not for the faint hearted. It's really violent, tragic, and for lack of a better word "Rape-y".
User avatar #1059 to #972 - byakuyakuchiki (09/12/2012) [-]
I keep looking at that comment and wondering why you would ask the exchange students about Nanking. If it is obviously a very touchy subject for their nation as a whole, then why ask them about it? Unless of course there was some circumstance in which something relevant to the event was brought up, I could see that, but for now, I just don't see how or why you would talk about it. Can you tell me please? (non-sarcastic tone)
User avatar #1089 to #1059 - randomlyici (09/12/2012) [-]
They were in my history class. They had to take general education classes as well. We were talking about World War 2 and I asked them about their thoughts on the Rape of Nanking. I know it's a touchy subject but I was really curious to their response.
User avatar #978 to #972 - thecjss (09/12/2012) [-]
killing innocent people because innocent people got killed is never justified
User avatar #984 to #978 - randomlyici (09/12/2012) [-]
We were in the middle of the war that they started. Also, because of our nukes they had to retreat from China. More innocent lives would have been lost from our side and theirs if had dragged out the war with them and more lives would have been lost in China.

I also stated that I don't think they deserved to get nuked twice. My point was that Japan was not so innocent
User avatar #993 to #984 - thecjss (09/12/2012) [-]
the leaders weren't and soldiers weren't

The people were

You can justify anything
User avatar #1000 to #993 - randomlyici (09/12/2012) [-]
meh, I'm done talking about history and politics. I can only discuss so much. Never really liked either subject. You have your own sense of morality and I have mine.

You think the nukes were uncalled for. I think the nukes, as harsh as they were (ungodly harsh), they did stop more people from dying in China, Japan, and the U.S.

I'll be on my way now. Good day to you.
User avatar #1014 to #1000 - thecjss (09/12/2012) [-]
pretentious piece of ****
User avatar #1019 to #1014 - randomlyici (09/12/2012) [-]
Try to end an argument on good terms...Get called a pretentious piece of **** ? Yeah ok dude. I'm not going to even react or participate in your name calling. See ya.
#964 - jackthelights (09/12/2012) [-]
This is ******** . Japan hit pearl harbor before we nuked them. and yes it was during a war. Don't talk **** unless you know the reasoning and timeline jackass.
#985 to #964 - anon (09/12/2012) [-]
*sigh* Pearl Harbour was a miitary base. With soldiers and army equipment. Hiroshima and Nagasaki had children and women and hospitals and schools who had nothing to do with the war. Americans always seem to forget that part.
User avatar #1048 to #985 - Endofzeeworld (09/12/2012) [-]
You have literally no idea how stupid what you just said is, and I find it hilarious.
"At the time of its bombing, Hiroshima was a city of both industrial and military significance. A number of military camps were located nearby, including the headquarters of Field Marshal Shunroku Hata's 2nd General Army Headquarters, which commanded the defense of all of southern Japan.
The city of Nagasaki had been one of the largest sea ports in southern Japan and was of great wartime importance because of its wide-ranging industrial activity, including the production of ordnance, ships, military equipment, and other war materials."
Don't get me wrong here, I am personally opposed to use of Nuclear Weapons under ANY circumstances, but do not count out the military significance of these cities.
#1052 to #985 - anon (09/12/2012) [-]
About half the people that died during the Pearl Harbor attacks were women and children. The atomic bomb was a complete last resort. It actually saved more lives. You might ask how. Well Japan really gave no choice to the Allies other than an invasion of the country. Japan was actually willing to fight to the last child, giving them weapons. It was predicted to cause 1 million casualties, which would be the highest amount of casualties of any war ever. They originally were just going to nuke a near by island as a warning, but they hadn't tested the bomb, and if it failed, Japan wouldn't take the US seriously. The US did not know the bomb would have that much power, they thought it would be half that. But Japan refused to surrender even after the first one. The 2nd one was dropped, and Japan finally surrendered.
#1004 to #985 - theycallmegoku (09/12/2012) [-]
Hiroshima was a military and industrial center for Japan, in other words a primary target in a war. Do a little research next time.
User avatar #1023 to #985 - fiosh (09/12/2012) [-]
This is valid and you should feel valid.
#612 - deepblue (09/12/2012) [-]
This is an "apples & oranges" argument; Hiroshima was a government sanctioned act of War during an officially declared wartime in response to attacks on the United States, whom with its allies in the UK and China issued the Potsdam Declaration giving ample warning to the Japanese government calling for a full military stand-down & disarming and surrender or they would respond "prompt and utter destruction" which was a reference to the possession of Nuclear Weapons by the United States military. The Japanese government attempted to hide the declaration from the civilian population. They were, however, informed by the United States military via leaflets dropped from American bombers, and almost unanimously called for the acceptance the terms set forth by the Potsdam Declaration. The Japanese government then openly announced that it was firm in its position to reject these terms. The bombs were dropped on specific military targets with efforts to reduce civilian casualties.

9/11 was an attack by al-Queda, a known terrorist organization, that was provoked by the presence of troops in Saudi Arabia, primarily during Operation Southern Watch, following the 1991 Gulf War, an occupation that was supported by the country's governing body and military. Second by the US support of efforts to prevent further harm to the people of the region and the world by the Military Dictatorship led by Sadam Hussein that held government power in Iraq at the time. And third by the US support of Israel in the Middle East, an alliance that was formed in order to protect the people of Israel from religious prosecution and attack, and also to stop the spread of the USSR's influence in the region. The targets of 9/11 were chosen for maximum total casualties.

and for those tl;dr: The atomic bombs were dropped after warning that followed all commonly accepted practices of civilized warfare, and the 9/11 by group of religious radicalists.

Apples and oranges.
#650 to #612 - anon (09/12/2012) [-]
Hey, you seem to know your stuff. Off topic, but I just had a question that we had a debate on last year in history class. Just curious to hear your opinion on this. Do you think that dropping an atomic bomb on a deserted/cleared U.S. captured island near the Japanese mainland as a demonstration of its destructive power to the Japanese government would have worked? This was an option that I had to defend, and really, I thought why wouldn't it work? Although there are some obvious flaws to this option, I think it would've worked and that civilian lives would be saved, even though Hiroshima and Nagasaki had military targets. We lost the debate though... I'll check on this later if you can answer.
#726 to #650 - deepblue (09/12/2012) [-]
One of the interesting parts of history is that we'll never know exactly what would have happened if we had done something differently... That being said I think the bombs we dropped on Japan served two major functions:

1. It wiped out military installations that were vital for the Japanese military to be able to retaliate or really to continue fighting a war in general, especially considering that WWII was essentially over in Europe, leaving allied troops fully available to wage war on Japan.

2. It acted as a demonstration of the force that the US was willing to use to end WWII, and it did so while inflicting a minimal amount of civilian casualties.

And as a sub fact, I personally think it was more humane to drop the bombs directly on the cities, offering a relatively quick death to many of the victims as opposed to a nuclear detonation off-shore that would still have produced a radioactive cloud powerful enough to cause radiation poisoning and cancers much more prevalent than in the actual aftermath (kind of a morbid point, but I'd rather a quick death than prolonged suffering).
User avatar #698 to #650 - violenthandjob (09/12/2012) [-]
Since OP hasn't replied yet I thought I'd share why I think about the subject. Which is that the Japanese government with the state of mind they were in more than likely wouldn't have been intimidated by anything except a show of force on their homeland. Plus the logistics of arranging such a display, along with convincing Japanese military observers to attend such a showing, would of been mind boggling. This also goes along with the fact that they'd only been able to test the atom bomb once before and didn't quite understand its full power yet. The cleared island idea isn't a bad idea just not a very sound one.
#753 to #698 - deepblue (09/12/2012) [-]
Well put! Sorry it took me so long to respond, I posted that comment before I left work and then headed home.
User avatar #810 to #698 - ilovehitler (09/12/2012) [-]
Plus, the Japanese didn't surrender after we had bombed the first city. They kept on fighting, even after a second chance.
They had too much pride.
#623 to #612 - duudegladiator (09/12/2012) [-]
I couldn't have typed that much. nor found sources to back up what i was saying. Come over here bro. I want to hug you.
#747 to #623 - deepblue (09/12/2012) [-]
I'm just a supporter of the idea that you have to know a subject before you can argue about it :)
#355 - russianapathy (09/12/2012) [-]
Posted this comment last time this picture was posted just a year ago.

"Why the hell is everyone arguing about us nuking Japan? They brought us into a war we didn't want to be in that killed hundreds of Americans every month.

It was either nuke them, or invade, and invading would have gotten a lot more people killed, Japanese and American alike. we even had an invasion planned which would have been almost 5x larger than D-day. We even got the Soviets to help us by invading from the north.

The U.S. wouldn't have needed the second bomb if Japan had just surrendered after the first one.

Learn your history, ******** ."
#361 to #355 - anon (09/12/2012) [-]
He is saying that although the nukings may have been necessary you don't hear Japan bitching about it ever. Please place your testicles in a blender to spare humanity your offspring
#754 to #361 - itsmypenis **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#756 to #754 - itsmypenis **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #371 to #361 - russianapathy (09/12/2012) [-]
As I said, the other option was to invade. Would you rather civilians die all over the country in numerous bombing raids plus thousands of troops on both sides, or a quick and decisive blow on one or two cities?

It wasn't our fault they had too much pride to surrender after the first bombing.
#395 to #371 - anon (09/12/2012) [-]
whether or not they didn't surrender after the first bombing, they should not have dropped a weapon of mass destruction on innocent civilians.
User avatar #408 to #395 - russianapathy (09/12/2012) [-]
**** the civilians. War is just that, ******* war. You do whatever you can to further the detriment of your enemy.

What about the 15 million Chinese civilians that died because of the Japanese occupation during WWII? That's what we were working to stop. They attacked us first.
User avatar #402 to #395 - bioshockisawesome (09/12/2012) [-]
There were probably soldiers there too.
User avatar #411 to #402 - russianapathy (09/12/2012) [-]
There were, hence why we targeted Hiroshima and Nagasaki 'cause those were major military and industrial centers in Japan.
#417 to #411 - bioshockisawesome (09/12/2012) [-]
You are my new best friend for actually getting that.
User avatar #427 to #417 - russianapathy (09/12/2012) [-]
I'm a big history buff and it irks me when people don't understand.

I could understand some of the hate if we had bombed Tokyo, which was and still is Japan's biggest city.

But no, we bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki; two cities (with low populations) that helped fuel the Japanese war machine.
User avatar #435 to #427 - bioshockisawesome (09/12/2012) [-]
I know what you mean man.
You have to get all the facts before you just start pointing fingers.
I think that it"s just because the USA is the global superpower.
If we weren't all the hate would most likely be directed towards that one.
Plus, EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY has committed VERY terrible acts.
Even if they were kept hidden.
User avatar #366 to #355 - kalthorak (09/12/2012) [-]
What about the fact that you used a weapon of mass destruction twice on civilian targets?
#379 to #366 - playersbewarned ONLINE (09/12/2012) [-]
What about the fact they were all prepared to fight to the death anyway?
#376 to #366 - bioshockisawesome (09/12/2012) [-]
That is their governments fault.
We had given them warning before each bomb was dropped.
They did not surrender until the second bomb was dropped.
Honestly, we had a much smaller chance of success if we sent our troops in because they had over one million troops waiting for us.(the number might be wrong but the statement is still mostly true)
Just saying.
User avatar #382 to #376 - gammajk (09/12/2012) [-]
Have you considered that Al Qaeda might be using the exact same argument for justifying 9/11?
#394 to #382 - bioshockisawesome (09/12/2012) [-]
1. That had nothing to do with a war so it does not count.
2. All soldiers in the towers if any were there at all were of duty at the time.
User avatar #405 to #394 - gammajk (09/12/2012) [-]
1. They might see it as a war. Have you considered that? Gulf war, constant invasions of their countries, perceived persecution in america, etc.
2. Not exactly relevant. It wasn't intended to kill soldiers, it was intended to send a message, i.e. "leave us the **** alone or this will keep happening".

Plus, I wasn't aware that war was a valid excuse for murdering 100,000+ civilians.
User avatar #413 to #405 - bioshockisawesome (09/12/2012) [-]
And you are blind to the fact that they wouldn't just have their soldiers camping all along the coastline.
They had their soldiers all over japan.
Honestly why are we even arguing about stupid **** like this.
User avatar #434 to #413 - gammajk (09/12/2012) [-]
I'm making a point that justifying hiroshima and nagasaki can be compared to al qaeda justifying 9/11.
User avatar #445 to #434 - bioshockisawesome (09/12/2012) [-]
And you would be right.
I was never justifying it.
Desperate times call for desperate measures right?
Hell, our president even went into tears after the successful testing of the atom bomb during his speech because he knew we would have to use it.
All I'm saying is that you can't just act like some country OTHER than us didn't do something just as bad if not worse than that.
#1306 to #394 - jakols (09/12/2012) [-]
of course its a war, both sides agree on that
not a traditional war, but the war on terror is a war never the less
US talks about the war on terror all the time.
A war need to parties
the western civilization on one side and the Muslim extremist's on the other

Al'Qaeda is the most known terrorist organization (or freedom fighters in their eyes) to they are the other side of the war.

This is just a war that have no boarders, no land, no native country.
This war is about a way of life, were two civilizations struggle for dominants

fyi, not saying that you are wrong, but i had to correct the impression most people have that the world is not at war, because we most certainly are.
User avatar #1526 to #1306 - bioshockisawesome (09/12/2012) [-]
I stated that there was no war on terror at the time of 9/11. Immediately afterwards we did declare a war on terror. But before 9/11 we were not at war.
User avatar #384 to #376 - bioshockisawesome (09/12/2012) [-]
Also their soldiers were NOTORIOUS for their "fight to the last breath" attitude.
We knew we were going to lose a lot of men if we sent them in.
User avatar #373 to #366 - russianapathy (09/12/2012) [-]
Refer to comment #371 just below
User avatar #289 - sfranklin (09/11/2012) [-]
yes the united states of america used nuclear weapons on japan. however, if the united states had invaded the islands of japan millions more people would have died. in short what may seem like an inhumane attrocity saved millions of lives. get over it.
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)