Current Events > How do you feel about the atomic bombings of Japan in WWII?

(+) Yeah! (+)

It was completely unnecessary but is a perfect example of what America foreign policy would become--fuck civilians, we can't give the communists any advantage.
---

MorbidFaithless posted...

I do not think it should have happened. There's no justification for such an act of slaughter, in my opinion.

ChromaticAngel posted...

Unwarranted. We should have accepted their surrender instead of trying to force them into an unconditional surrender.

People who say stuff like this clearly know nothing about the history of WWII, nor the Japanese for that matter. The Japanese back then had the very strong dogmatic doctrine of fighting till they die, honor > logic.
As can be seen fighting techniques like the kamikaze arose from. The Japanese were that nationalistic.
When the first bomb dropped, the government just brushed it off as nothing much. Surrender wasnt even on their mind. There was also a very significant military rebellion against any form of surrendering. Even AFTER the 2nd bomb, the Japanese military will wanted to continue like the nationalistic bats they were. The government pushed for surrender terms that were favorable to them.

It's only after the emperor decided to surrender, under the one term that the monarchy wont be destroyed, did Japan finally relinquish to the Allies.


Also if you think this nuking is some act of evil, you people should see and realise the inhumane atrocities the Japanese committed across South Asia, to the Malays, Chinese, Koreans and also the Australian and British POWs. The Japanese were far more cruel than the Nazis, even some visiting Nazis condoned the kind of sick twisted things the Japanese did.
And you think its wrong to bomb a city of civilians? All the Japanese civilians support their military and their crazed mindset anyway. Call them ''innocent'', yeah right.

Any form of sympathy ignorant Americans have towards the Japanese just plains sickens me.

Mackorov posted...

When the first bomb dropped, the government just brushed it off as nothing much.

read my links before talking about how people don't know history

or at least read the TL;DR
---

DevsBro posted...

Not the call I would have made but I suppose a politician doesn't have the luxury of deontological ethics.

Officially, the a bombs save millions of lives yadda yadda, and who knows maybe it's true.

It not only saved the Japanese civilians (not like they deserved it at all), but also millions of Asians under suffering under the hellish Japanese occupation.

There's a reason why no one in Asia cares s*** about the nukes.
Go to Malaysia, China, Korea, Singapore etc. and ask the people there if they think the nukes were justified. Especially the old generation who survived the WWII Japanese occupation. They will you for sure the Japanese deserved it 100%. In fact, they should deserve a punishment far worse.

Darkman124 posted...

Mackorov posted...

When the first bomb dropped, the government just brushed it off as nothing much.

read my links before talking about how people don't know history

or at least read the TL;DR

It doesnt contradict what I said. It was thanks to the Emperor Japan surrendered. And only because the Emperor doesnt lose much anyway. Just continue sitting in his throne unpunished for all the war crimes the rest committed. Thank McArthur for that. If the Soviets got to Japan first, the country would be another North Korea right now

It was an act of genocide, the US slaughtered hundred's of thousands of civilians just so they could show of there wang.
---

solosnake posted...

stoltenberg11 posted...

gunplagirl posted...

The us committed the most horrendous acts of terrorism in history as a result

I mean the holocaust was still worse

thats extremely debatable imo

Hahahahaahahahaah are you serious?
---

both were not needed and President Truman only did it to scare Stalin during the WW2 treaties in Europe when the allies were dividing countries and Stalin was calling their bluff of bombs.
---

Mackorov posted...

It doesnt contradict what I said. It was thanks to the Emperor Japan surrendered. And only because the Emperor doesnt lose much anyway. Just continue sitting in his throne unpunished for all the war crimes the rest committed. Thank McArthur for that. If the Soviets got to Japan first, the country would be another North Korea right now

after the first bomb the emperor broke with all tradition and forced his government to abandon all surrender terms except keeping him (which we let them do anyway)

your description of the government's reaction to hiroshima is grossly inaccurate.

AwesomeOSauce posted...

both were not needed and President Truman only did it to scare Stalin during the WW2 treaties in Europe when the allies were dividing countries and Stalin was calling their bluff of bombs.

read. my. links. this is not accurate.

mackarov is quite correct about the bombs' use and their implications for those that japan occupied
---

Darkman124 posted...

Mackorov posted...

It doesnt contradict what I said. It was thanks to the Emperor Japan surrendered. And only because the Emperor doesnt lose much anyway. Just continue sitting in his throne unpunished for all the war crimes the rest committed. Thank McArthur for that. If the Soviets got to Japan first, the country would be another North Korea right now

after the first bomb the emperor broke with all tradition and forced his government to abandon all surrender terms except keeping him (which we let them do anyway)

your description of the government's reaction to hiroshima is grossly inaccurate.

I was purposely using figure of speech to get my point across, jeez. How else do you communicate strongly to these peeps on CE?

pikachupwnage posted...

solosnake posted...

stoltenberg11 posted...

gunplagirl posted...

The us committed the most horrendous acts of terrorism in history as a result

I mean the holocaust was still worse

thats extremely debatable imo

Hahahahaahahahaah are you serious?

please search up Great Leap Forward.

or Holodomor.

or try Khmer Rouge genocide

Mackorov posted...

pikachupwnage posted...

solosnake posted...

stoltenberg11 posted...

gunplagirl posted...

The us committed the most horrendous acts of terrorism in history as a result

I mean the holocaust was still worse

thats extremely debatable imo

Hahahahaahahahaah are you serious?

please search up Great Leap Forward.

or Holodomor.

or try Khmer Rouge genocide

He said worse not worst.

He was saying the bombing was not as bad as the holocaust was.
---

Mackorov posted...

I was purposely using figure of speech to get my point across, jeez. How else do you communicate strongly to these peeps on CE?

with facts and information
---

We killed over 200k civilians, but then we act like we dont target innocent civilians like terrorists do
---

Shit. Guess this means the Goku vs super man topics will be making a comeback soon.
---

Darkman124 posted...

Mackorov posted...

It doesnt contradict what I said. It was thanks to the Emperor Japan surrendered. And only because the Emperor doesnt lose much anyway. Just continue sitting in his throne unpunished for all the war crimes the rest committed. Thank McArthur for that. If the Soviets got to Japan first, the country would be another North Korea right now

after the first bomb the emperor broke with all tradition and forced his government to abandon all surrender terms except keeping him (which we let them do anyway)

your description of the government's reaction to hiroshima is grossly inaccurate.

AwesomeOSauce posted...

both were not needed and President Truman only did it to scare Stalin during the WW2 treaties in Europe when the allies were dividing countries and Stalin was calling their bluff of bombs.

read. my. links. this is not accurate.

mackarov is quite correct about the bombs' use and their implications for those that japan occupied

It is accurate go watch this https://youtu.be/weWDlaSxKZA?t=32m46s
---

Mackorov posted...

People who say stuff like this clearly know nothing about the history of WWII, nor the Japanese for that matter. The Japanese back then had the very strong dogmatic doctrine of fighting till they die, honor > logic.
As can be seen fighting techniques like the kamikaze arose from. The Japanese were that nationalistic.
When the first bomb dropped, the government just brushed it off as nothing much. Surrender wasnt even on their mind.

Actual correspondence between Japan and the allies proves otherwise. It's also already been posted in this thread.

You can't even look at the history of this thread but you expect me to believe you understand the history of WW2?
---

Interesting poll results here lately. Robert E. Lee is seen as more evil than the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But America loves winners, and you know what they say about who writes the history books.
---

ChromaticAngel posted...

Actual correspondence between Japan and the allies proves otherwise. It's also already been posted in this thread.

You can't even look at the history of this thread but you expect me to believe you understand the history of WW2?

the actual history i posted also does not support your version of events

pre-hiroshima, they weren't willing to negotiate on the status of the emperor, war criminals, forced disarmament, or withdrawal from occupied territories. they had hard stances on those points.

these were kind of important to us.

pre-nagasaki, there is some argument that can be made that that bombing wasn't necessary and may have been more to prevent soviet aggression than to force unconditional surrender.

AwesomeOSauce posted...

It is accurate go watch this https://youtu.be/weWDlaSxKZA?t=32m46s

i hate when people link me to videos. quite simply: i don't care what US/Soviet politicians were saying. i care what Japanese politicians were saying, and what they were saying is public record.
---

I don't care about it.
---

unwarranted. we'd virtually won anyway, but they didn't want to wrap up the war without their money shot for both satisfaction/revenge against japan and as a message to the rest of the world about the power of the united states (particularly to the soviet union)
---

ThyCorndog posted...

unwarranted. we'd virtually won anyway, but they didn't want to wrap up the war without their money shot for both satisfaction/revenge against japan and as a message to the rest of the world about the power of the united states (particularly to the soviet union)

Darkman124 posted...

This should be required reading whenever discussing the atomic bombs.

http://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb525-The-Atomic-Bomb-and-the-End-of-World-War-II/documents/075.pdf

http://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb525-The-Atomic-Bomb-and-the-End-of-World-War-II/documents/089.pdf

TL;DR: Even after the Hiroshima bombings, the high council had refused terms of surrender given by the Allies, and specifically refused occupation, forced disarmament, and foreign prosecution of their war criminals, in addition to maintenance of the role of the Emperor. This was driven by men who were guilty of war crimes, who essentially were trying to save their own skins.

The Emperor overruled them and declared Japan should surrender, but the wired response by Japan was that they still insisted on keeping the Emperor.

After Nagasaki, the emperor made a second overruling of his council in which he declared that even if it costs him his role and his life, Japan should surrender.

General Anami supported an attempted coup after this to attempt to stop the surrender.

---

Darkman124 posted...

pre-hiroshima, they weren't willing to negotiate on the status of the emperor, war criminals, forced disarmament, or withdrawal from occupied territories. they had hard stances on those points.

I wouldn't necessarily say that. The war council was split on this issue. The camp of Foreign Minister Togo favored accepting the Potsdam Declaration with only the caveat that the status of the emperor be retained, while the camp of minister Anami favored the conditions that you listed. The council was unable to form a consensus, which is why the emperor had to step in.
---

UnholyMudcrab posted...

I wouldn't necessarily say that. The war council was split on this issue. The camp of Foreign Minister Togo favored accepting the Potsdam Declaration with only the caveat that the status of the emperor be retained, while the camp of minister Anami favored the conditions that you listed. The council was unable to form a consensus, which is why the emperor had to step in.

Yes, and when consensus was unsuccessful the result was that they did not respond to the declaration, effectively a denial.

It was only after the first bombing that the Emperor felt it necessary to make a unilateral decision. The bomb moved him to action.

The army camp was unwilling to surrender without those terms, ever, because they knew they'd be executed for war crimes. Which is why Anami supported the coup after the second sacred decision.
---

Darkman124 posted...

the actual history i posted also does not support your version of events

pre-hiroshima, they weren't willing to negotiate on the status of the emperor, war criminals, forced disarmament, or withdrawal from occupied territories. they had hard stances on those points.

these were kind of important to us.

The comments you are making now support "my version of the events"

Strongly saying they don't support my version while you offer up an "actual account" that supports my version is madness.

I get that issues such as war criminals and disarmament were important to us. I am saying we were wrong to consider such issues deal breakers for surrender negotiations.
---

ChromaticAngel posted...

I am saying we were wrong to consider such issues deal breakers for surrender negotiations.

uh that's a little ridiculous

we were never going to agree to let japan 'handle' their own war criminals

considering our soldiers were on the receiving end of some of those crimes

no forced disarmament, no forced withdrawal, no occupation, no prosecution of war criminals is effectively an offer of a white peace and a huge slap in the face to our allies in nationalist china.

we did not win a white peace.

but we also weren't willing to wait for the soviet advance to achieve more. we had to account for the fact that the chinese civil war was going to resume once the war ended, and it did. we thought ending the war before all of manchuria fell to the soviets (and was then handed to Mao) would give the KMT a sure victory. we never guessed that kai-shek would be such a moron.

i think the most rational view is that the first atom bomb was justified, and the second one was a mistake built upon our lack of foresight about what we were actually going to do with the Japanese emperor.

i'm not really clear as to whether we'd have been able to rewrite their constitution had we allowed them to keep the imperial house though; that element of international politics is beyond me and it's possible that in making the surrender fully unconditional, we were able to have the control we needed to write their new constitution
---

stoltenberg11 posted...

gunplagirl posted...

The us committed the most horrendous acts of terrorism in history as a result

I mean the holocaust was still worse

You're arguing with a gimmick.
---

ReignFury posted...

We killed over 200k civilians, but then we act like we dont target innocent civilians like terrorists do

It was total war. Civilian deaths are expected.
---

Iain121 posted...

ReignFury posted...

We killed over 200k civilians, but then we act like we dont target innocent civilians like terrorists do

It was total war. Civilian deaths are expected.

also hiroshima was the site of japanese army high command

the bombing didn't kill general anami but it did wipe out a great deal of their military cmd structure.

nagasaki was a naval production city, so less clearly justifiable.
---

Darkman124 posted...

uh that's a little ridiculous

we were never going to agree to let japan 'handle' their own war criminals

considering our soldiers were on the receiving end of some of those crimes

Ok? And that justifies the extraterritoriality that we imposed on them?

Darkman124 posted...

no forced disarmament, no forced withdrawal, no occupation, no prosecution of war criminals is effectively an offer of a white peace and a huge slap in the face to our allies in nationalist china.

Yeah, our "Chinese allies" that turned tail and sided with the soviets immediately. Hunted and killed Capitalists who had to flee to Taiwan and we considered a mortal enemy until Richard Nixon of all people managed to open diplomatic channels with them again.

Seriously, though. I understand the logic behind the bombings, I just don't agree with them. I feel they were predominantly emotionally motivated decisions and out desperation to prevent spread of communism.
---

ChromaticAngel posted...

Yeah, our "Chinese allies" that turned tail and sided with the soviets immediately. Hunted and killed Capitalists who had to flee to Taiwan and we considered a mortal enemy until Richard Nixon of all people managed to open diplomatic channels with them again.

That's the wrong China, buddy.
---

ChromaticAngel posted...

Yeah, our "Chinese allies" that turned tail and sided with the soviets immediately. Hunted and killed Capitalists who had to flee to Taiwan and we considered a mortal enemy until Richard Nixon of all people managed to open diplomatic channels with them again.

i was referring to the ones that were defeated in the chinese civil war, the kuomintang. you know that not all of china was communist during WWII, don't you? the communists were largely isolated to yunnan province, though the soviets handed half of manchuria over to them after the war. would've been all (along with the rest of the east coast) had the war ended later

the move to end quickly was based on the assumption that the KMT could win the chinese civil war that followed. i think nobody expected the dramatic and complete failures that they faced post-war.

ChromaticAngel posted...

I feel they were predominantly emotionally motivated decisions and out desperation to prevent spread of communism.

i don't think that lines up at all with the information we have about the high council's decision making before, during, and after the bombs, or our specific post-war goals with respect to japan
---

ChromaticAngel posted...

Yeah, our "Chinese allies" that turned tail and sided with the soviets immediately. Hunted and killed Capitalists who had to flee to Taiwan and we considered a mortal enemy until Richard Nixon of all people managed to open diplomatic channels with them again.

Are you actually this uninformed or is it bad trolling

ReignFury posted...

We killed over 200k civilians, but then we act like we dont target innocent civilians like terrorists do

tell me in what war do countries not end up killing each other's civilians? Oh right, none. Where do you live? Lalaland or something?