Thread 18000245

Why can't Americans just accept the fact dropping atomic bombs on civilians was a war crime? I get it's part of their national mythology but come on, it's been 80 years.

>>18000245 (OP)
Because America dropped leaflets telling civilians to leave. There is a whole case in Nagasaki about a janitor saving a bunch of school kids since he was sweeping the leaflets and decided to actually read it.

Why do you keep saying the lie that America dropped the bombs to intentionally target and kill civilians when there were plenty of military targets in both cities?

>>18000245 (OP)
Not a war crime to bomb cities anon, the USSR on the otherhand did 100% commit war crimes in Manchuria

>>18000363
>Because America dropped leaflets telling civilians to leave.
They didn't. It's a myth Americans like to tell. Because deep down they know it was a war crime.

>>18000245 (OP)
>many smaller bombs
I sleep.
>one really big bomb
Real shit?!

>>18000245 (OP)
Why can't japs just accept they deserved it?

>>18000997
Dresden and Tokyo were also war crimes.

>>18001006
Nah.

>>18000982
>me when i read facts i dont like >:(

>>18000245 (OP)
The whole concept of warcrime is retarded.

>>18000245 (OP)
There were no bombs dropped on those 2 cities, because atomic bombs don't exist.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were carped bombed.
You can tell by how they looked almost exactly the same as other cities that received the same treatment, lost's of rubble and some still standing structures.

>>18001020
It's not a fact ans it's actually very easy to verify. You're just lazy.

>>18000245 (OP)
It wasn't a war crime because there were no laws governing the bombing of cities at that time. Anyway, if you want to call it an atrocity you can, but it doesn't matter regardless.
Further, the Japanese government was using the Japanese population as a meat shield. They were sacrificing the civilian population of Japan in order to protect the emperor, and generally speaking the population was happy with this arrangement. As a matter of fact, many Japanese refused to surrender after the emperor declared surrender and kept fighting. You seriously believe that the same people who were such bloodthirsty savages that they tried to coup their own leader in order to keep the war going, were also innocent and didn't have it coming. It's just naiive. The entire nation was being mobilized for war, so there were no civilians in Japan. Even grandmas were taught how to carve knives from bamboo to attack G.I.s.

>>18000245 (OP)
Dropping a nuke on a city that has multiple military targets isn't a war crime. If both cities were disarmed, perhaps. But they weren't. Same with Dresden. Destroying the enemy's ability to resist isn't a crime. It's called war. War is awful, but the USA didn't BRING war to the Pacific, it was forced upon us by an aggressive totalitarian action, and we had to intervene to stop it. The destruction of two cities (and the firebombing of a few more) is a small price to pay for peace, to end the killing of both our men and theirs.

>>18001027
>you have to accept my narrative
>b-because YOU JUST HAVE TO OKAY?

>>18001027
>https://www.peace-nagasaki.go.jp/abombrecords/b020105.html
>In order to minimise the loss of life eleven Japanese cities were warned by leaflets on July 27 that they would be subjected to intensive air bombardment. Next day six of them were attacked. Twelve more were warned on July 31, and four were bombed on August 1. The last warning was given on August 5. By then the Superfortresses claimed to have dropped a million and a half leaflets every day and three million copies of the ultimatum. 138
>It is doubtful that the purpose of dropping leaflets was to minimize the loss of life, as Churchill suggests. It is true, nevertheless, that the leaflets were dropped over Japanese cities in considerable quantities prior to indiscriminate bombings.
>Kusumoto Toshikazu, an employee at the Mitsubishi Nagasaki Shipyard, reports seeing these leaflets falling from the sky on the morning of August 9 outside Nagasaki Prefecture:
>At the fateful moment on that fateful day, August 9, I was stationed in Yakuin, Fukuoka Prefecture, as a member of the 8063rd Unit, Western Forces. I heard the radio broadcast warning all people in Nagasaki to evacuate immediately and assumed that American forces had landed on Nagasaki Peninsula, which caused me to worry about Nagasaki, my hometown. Unit Headquarters had already been informed about the tremendous explosive power of the new-type bomb dropped on Hiroshima on August 6. I saw American leaflets—white pieces of paper about 10 cm in length and width—falling from the sky. A warning that another atomic bomb would be dropped on the morning of August 9 was printed on the leaflets.
Whaddya know, it was easy to verify

>>18001024
>city that got bombed looks like other city that got bombed

>>18000245 (OP)
Calling bombings of that time period a war crime is an anachronism.

The Japanese themselves didn't care about Japanese losses so why should we?

>>18001024
>they loaded up hundreds of bombers with a dozen crew each and bombed them as normal, and everyone involved stayed quiet for decades

>>18001048
>In preparation for dropping an atomic bomb on Hiroshima, the Oppenheimer-led Scientific Panel of the Interim Committee decided against a demonstration bomb and against a special leaflet warning. Those decisions were implemented because of the uncertainty of a successful detonation and also because of the wish to maximize shock in the leadership.[91] No warning was given to Hiroshima that a new and much more destructive bomb was going to be dropped.[92] Various sources gave conflicting information about when the last leaflets were dropped on Hiroshima prior to the atomic bomb. Robert Jay Lifton wrote that it was 27 July,[92] and Theodore H. McNelly wrote that it was 30 July.[91] The USAAF history noted that eleven cities were targeted with leaflets on 27 July, but Hiroshima was not one of them, and there were no leaflet sorties on 30 July.[89] Leaflet sorties were undertaken on 1 and 4 August. Hiroshima may have been leafleted in late July or early August, as survivor accounts talk about a delivery of leaflets a few days before the atomic bomb was dropped.[92] Three versions were printed of a leaflet listing 11 or 12 cities targeted for firebombing; a total of 33 cities listed. With the text of this leaflet reading in Japanese "... we cannot promise that only these cities will be among those attacked ..."[88] Hiroshima was not listed

And your own quotes say the leaflet campaign wasn't to prevent civilian causalities and that Nagasaki was warned after it had been bombed. You have no clue what you're even talking about.

>>18001029
>It wasn't a war crime because there were no laws governing the bombing of cities at that time
This is such a dumb argument. The allies invented new standards at Nuremberg and Tokyo so it never was a problem for them. But obviously no one was going to judge them.

>>18001006
Were Warsaw, London and Rotterdam also war crimes?

>>18001102
No german or japanese was prosecuted at the Nuremberg/Tokyo Trials for their respective aerial bomb wars.

>>18001114
Obviously. It would have been ridiculous considering the allies did it with far more intensity. So they chose not to prosecute them.

>>18001126
No dude, they couldn't be prosecuted because they didn't break any laws.

>>18001100
Shut the fuck up. He was right, you were wrong

>>18001132
You're very naive. If the allies could condemn Yamashita, they could very easily have done so with aerial bombings. They chose not to.
>>18001141
He wasn't and it's obvious when you know basic stuff about the war. The Americans specifically avoid bombing Hiroshima to demonstrate the effects of the bomb. Nagasaki was chosen for the bomb at the last minute.

>>18001100
>Wikipedia
Even you know it looks bad, you tried to hide it by not giving a link. The website I gave is the official Japanese website of the memorial for the victims of the nuclear bombing of Nagasaki. It is much more reliable than some shitty quote from Wikipedia. It also has a very strong Japanese bias AND it still confirms a warning was given prior to the bombing of both cities.
>And your own quotes say the leaflet campaign wasn't to prevent civilian causalities
In saying so it provides another confirmation that they took place
>and that Nagasaki was warned after it had been bombed
That's not what it says retard.
You're welcome to keep coping of course

>>18000245 (OP)
on the japs? should've been 6 bombs

>>18001409
>Even you know it looks bad, you tried to hide it by not giving a link
I didn't try to hide anything, anyone with a brain could understand it was from Wikipedia. But I forgot I'm talking with Americans.
The fact is, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were never warned about the atomic bombs. The leaflets were never meant to save human lives. Why do you think Hiroshima was chosen in the first place?
Here what the atomic foundation have to say about this.
>In August 1945, leaflets were dropped on several Japanese cities (including, supposedly, Hiroshima and Nagasaki). The first round, known as the “LeMay leaflets,” were distributed before the bombing of Hiroshima. These leaflets did not directly reference the atomic bomb, and it is unclear whether they were used to warn citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki specifically. The second round features a picture of a mushroom cloud and a message about the Soviet invasion (which commenced on August 9). The historical record is unclear, but it seems as though these leaflets did not make it to Nagasaki until after it, too, had been hit by an atomic bomb.
And another blog post by a lead historian on the subject:
https://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2013/04/26/a-day-too-late/
So you can keep your stupid narrative about the brave Americans telling civilians they were about to drop an atomic bomb on them.

>>18001457
>The fact is, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were never warned about the atomic bombs.
All evidence suggests they were warned of air raids and told to evacuate.
>The leaflets were never meant to save human lives.
Of course they were meant to save human lives retard. You may debate whether the creators of them cared about Japanese civilians, but encouraging an earlier end to the war was certainly made out of the desire to save the lives of allied soldiers.
>The first round, known as the “LeMay leaflets,” were distributed before the bombing of Hiroshima
>These leaflets did not directly reference the atomic bomb
Why would they? No one knew what an atomic bomb was or what it could do. Nonetheless they warned about air raids, which could be just as - or even more - dangerous than the atom bomb alone. Consider operation meetinghouse, where in a single night at least 100,000 were killed in Tokyo, likely more than either atomic bomb. This would have been known.
>The historical record is unclear, but it seems as though these leaflets did not make it to Nagasaki until after it, too, had been hit by an atomic bomb.
Evidently they knew, as shown by the testimonial in my earlier link.

>>18001522
>Of course they were meant to save human lives retard. You may debate whether the creators of them cared about Japanese civilians, but encouraging an earlier end to the war was certainly made out of the desire to save the lives of allied soldiers.
This is pure cope. You know the allies intended to maximise the civilian causalities, that was the point. Claiming it helped to end the war and thus saves lives is the usual way of coping with it but it's beside the point. The leaflets were never intended to prevent civilian causalities.
>Why would they? No one knew what an atomic bomb was or what it could do.
The Japanese knew very well what an atomic bomb was. The fact is, neither Hiroshima nor Nagasaki were directly warned they were about to get bombed. Some leaflets were dropped but they were dropped in a lot of cities too and they didn't directly mentioned the two cities.
Besides, it's not nearly as moral as you might think. Israelis love to brag at how moral they are because they warned one hour before levelling a place. It doesn't look good on you actually.

>>18001605
>You know the allies intended to maximise the civilian causalities, that was the point
We're talking about the leaflets you blithering idiot. What, do you think papercuts were a leading cause of death in 1945? How did they kill more people?
>The Japanese knew very well what an atomic bomb was
The scientists maybe, the average population not so much. Certainly not the extent of destruction one could cause. Meanwhile they were well aware of firebombings. An actuality people were well aware of is a better threat than some sci fi concept many thought impossible.
>neither Hiroshima nor Nagasaki were directly warned they were about to get bombed
We've gone over this and we've discovered they were. Your own quotes have main mention of leaflets dropped in these cities.
>they were dropped in a lot of cities
Lots of cities were conventionally bombed and the Americans intended to nuke others had the Japanese not surrendered when they did.
>Israelis
A poor comparison. Clearly the Americans had different intentions as they made no attempt to cleanse and settle Japan once it had surrendered. Furthermore the Americans never pretended they weren't bombing civilians.

>>18001627
But your argument rest on the idea that since the US warned Japan they were going to bomb them it can't be a war crime. We know that neither Hiroshima nor Nagasaki were warned about the bomb. We know the Americans purposely avoided bombing Hiroshima so that the effects of the bomb could be greater. So yeah, the point of all this was always to kill more civilians as possible. You can cling on the idea the leaflets absolve the US of having committed war crime, but it doesn't hold very well.

>>18000245 (OP)
I like America but when it comes to the bombings they’re morally bankrupt. The US should apologise

>>18001675
>But your argument rest on the idea that since the US warned Japan they were going to bomb them it can't be a war crime
NtA
It wasn't a war crime because the Hague Convention of 1907 didn't contain any regulations regarding areal warfare. There was legally nothing that condemned aerial bombardments of civilian areas.

>>18000363
>Because America dropped leaflets telling civilians to leave.
Lie. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were picked as targets because they hadn’t been bombed and nobody expected an attack

>>18000364
Mass murder of unarmed civilians and unnecessary destruction of civilian property are war crimes

>>18000997
Nuclear bombs are worse than conventional bombs

>>18001003
chink

>>18001006
Tokyo was a war crime, Dresden was not

>>18001029
>Japanese government was using the Japanese population as a meat shield.
False. Japanese military infrastructure was separate from the civilian population
>They were sacrificing the civilian population of Japan in order to protect the emperor
No the Americans were massacring civilians. If Japan bombed America would you say that the US was sacrificing it’s people for the president?
>bloodthirsty savages
Racist anti-Japanese propaganda (and not true, the Japanese military was the most moral and disciplined)
>The entire nation was being mobilized for war
That’s because Japan was fighting for it’s survival during the Greater East Asia War
>there were no civilians in Japan
Allied war criminal excuse. That’s like the Nazis saying there were no civilians in Eastern Europe
>Even grandmas were taught how to carve knives from bamboo to attack G.I.s.
What’s wrong with teaching civilians to defend themselves from invaders? The same thing happened in Britain in 1940 when they believed the Germans would invade

>>18001031
>Dropping a nuke on a city that has multiple military targets isn't a war crime
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were civilian targets
>the USA didn't BRING war to the Pacific, it was forced upon us by an aggressive totalitarian action
FDR caused the war by starving Japan of necessary resources

>>18001413
Seethe, Zhang

>>18001675
>We know that neither Hiroshima nor Nagasaki were warned
I have already demonstrated they were warmed, and shown explicitly that an atom bomb attack was known to be about to occur in Nagasaki. I do not know why you persist in this falsehood of claiming it did not happen. Especially now as you attempt to shift the arguement into one about it being a war crime regardless of any dropped leaflets, an arguement you failed to bring up before.
You are either a liar or purposefully ignorant and are either way undeserving of an opinion.

>>18001751
>have already demonstrated they were warmed
No. They were warned about bombings which didn't matter. The leaflets specifically didn't say "were going to bomb here this day so get out" but more "were going to bomb somewhere someday" which is vastly different.
>that an atom bomb attack was known to be about to occur in Nagasaki
No. Even your source say it's doubtful. All you have is some random testimony about people claiming they saw leaflets warning about the atomic bomb. But it probably never happened for various reasons Logistically it doesn't make sense since Nagasaki wasn't supposed to be the target that day. But more importantly we have no trace of those leaflets being dropped before the bomb. Your own source says so.
I don't need to prove anything about this, morally it would still have been a war crime even if the leaflets had been dropped. You're the one clinging on this thing because deep down you know it was a war crime.

>>18001824
>We will bomb you like we have done time and time before. Leave your cities.
>Well not my problem lmao
Were the Japanese just stupid then?

>>18002260
>We'll bomb everywhere and there's nothing you can do about it.
Yeah, not sure there were some place they could go.

all of history was fake and gay, actually.

>>18000245 (OP)
What was wrong with nuking assholes? What part of war you don't understand?

>>18002776
If America had been nuked you wouldn’t be so arrogant

>>18002790
what relevance does that pic have to anything?

>>18002783
>Chimp out
>Invade all your neighbors
>Kill millions of people
>Attack America because they didn't want to give you more oil
>NOO IT'S NOT FAIR WHY ARE YOU BOMBING US

>>18001021
This

>>18000245 (OP)
The nips ought to feel gratitude only 2 bombs were dropped when after their conduct in places like Nanking and Manchuria they were not wiped from the face of the earth. no country has behaved as appallingly in the history of warfare as the Japanese with the tacit support of the civilian population too. Disgusting people.

>>18002811
Indiscriminate bombing of Tokyo
Indiscriminate shooting targeting private homes
The yankies are doing the same thing

>>18002834
No the yanks never did anything close to what the Japanese did in Nanking. It's not even remotely comparable. Bombing Tokyo was a legitimate war target since Tokyo was crucial the Japanese war effort. What the nips did to chinese civilians was pure cruelty. Nothing more.

>>18002811
So if a Iraqi start shooting some american kids at school because the US unlawfully bombed his country and killed thousands, it would be fine? I guess it wouldn't matter much since it's a daily occurrence for you.

>>18002925
>So if a Iraqi start shooting some american kids at school because the US unlawfully bombed his country and killed thousands, it would be fine? I guess it wouldn't matter much since it's a daily occurrence for you.
Nice non-sequiter and apples vs oranges comparison there , retard. Try again.

>>18002811
So if America has the moral right and duty to nuke every country who has ever committed a warcrime then why haven't you? Too pussy?

>>18002811
>We nuked you because we felt really hecking bad about those poor Chinamen, even though we weren't there and it isn't our business in any way

>>18002811
You sound totally insane. Imagine if England nuked America and justified it because of American warcrimes in Syria or something

>>18002934
>America has the moral right and duty
> duty
Who said anything about "duty". I highlight the warcrimes , and yes there is such a thing as warcrimes, ( even Medieval people understood this concept why can't you?) that rising sun era Japan was like a rabid dog. If such a sociopathic regime combined with the power imperial Japan's possessed ever appeared again it should be obliterated. Yes.


Two nuclear weapons to end the war against a genocidal enemy and nation of sociopaths who supported the mass slaughter and rape of millions of non Japanese was a merciful actand yes in my opinion America had the right to drop more on the cunts and set an example to the rest of the world that you can't go around behaving like a mongol horde in the 20th century. Japan's behaviour was so unnecessarily brutal it shocked everyone even their nazi allies. There are rules to war. No nation is perfect but the nips were a special breed of sociopath and sadly weebs and other sad cunts have allowed them to whitewash their history and play the fucking victim over two atom bombs.

>>18002940
>You sound totally insane. Imagine if England nuked America and justified it because of American warcrimes in Syria


Well for one thing England is not at war currently with the USA. Not sure if you realise that is quite a crucial difference?

And I must have missed the part where American soldiers raped entire cities and sent hundreds of thousands of women into sex slavery from Syria or when American soldiers conducted live dissections on Syrian civilians or infected them with diseases deliberately. Do you have any idea how stupid a comparison is that you just made there Mr weebo?

>>18002944
The Russians raped millions of non-Russians but you were perfectly fine allying with them. Your Old Testament moralistic eye-for-eye mentality is exactly why Amerimutt hegemony is dying.
And you're being replaced by a Chinese hegemony! The irony couldn't be more amusing. Do you think the Chinese will thank you for getting vengeance for their sake? I can assure you they hold as deep a grudge against America that by all rights the Japanese should.

>>18002948
>The Russians raped millions of non-Russians but you were perfectly fine allying with them.
I don't think you can describe the alliance with the USSR as "perfectly fine" and there were many great reservations. You may forget that the USSR became an ally after it was attacked by nazi Germany and before a single rape could have been committed during the war by a Russian soldier in Europe. Another stupid point. Do better.

>>18002944
No amount of empty rhetoric
can change the fact that the atomic bomb was dropped.
Admit the truth: both sides are perpetrators.

>>18002947
America does conduct torture on prisoners of war and this is widely document. Of course you can claim it's all fake, and I can claim the Japanese claims are fake. But this argument is beside the point.
The question is whether a third party has a moral right to nuke another country for its actions in an unrelated conflict. Anyone who isn't retarded, or American, would agree that nuclear weapons should never be used except in the most dire circumstances that threaten their own nation's existence.

>>18002952
The USSR absolutely committed rape and mass murder during its invasion of the Baltic states, which occurred prior to your alliance them. Stop with the pathetic moral grandstanding.

>>18002954
>No amount of empty rhetoric
>can change the fact that the atomic bomb was dropped.
So what?why does the fact it was an atom bomb matter Vs sending 200 b52's to destroy a city? Not much really. The atom bombs taught a nation of war criminals and racists a lesson to fear ever stepping out of line again. It saved countless American soldiers lives and Japanese lives too although the extent by which the bombs hastened the surrender can be debated they definitely had an effect.

Overall the bombs were a good thing and Japan got off lightly for what it did. The most barbaric and cruel regime in modern history.

>>18002960
>The USSR absolutely committed rape and mass murder during its invasion of the Baltic states, which occurred prior to your alliance them.
I doubt it was widely known at that stage. Regardless, the Japs were a special and brutal kind of evil. What they did was above and beyond what even the soviets would have tolerated.

>>18002966
You're hopelessly retarded.

>>18002962
>taught a nation of war criminals and racists a lesson to fear ever stepping out of line again

>>18002968
No,I think you're the retard mate. If you think the Japanese, attacking countries and people who had no quarrel at all with them,were not far worse than the soviets then you're literally retarded. The nips were a special kind of evil. Not even the evil empire of Stalin compares

>>18002975
>Noo my hecking wholesome Ruskies would never commit war crimes!!

>>18002971
I'm English, fella. Nice try.
>>18002977
>wholesome Ruskies would never commit war crimes!!
> never said never

Nice strawman. I accept your concession.

>>18002979
BASED Ruskies. They're so white and civilized unlike ebil Japs!

>>18002981
> nooo don't bomb my precious japareenos, they dindu nuffin and they make anime and robots and videogames and shieet, I worship the ground of every nip noooo leave them alone noooo

>>18002979
>I'm English
Sorry I don't speak to people who lost the Cold War

>>18003000
Yeah well done for that. did they manage to build a toilet in India yet?

>>18003004
Yes, it's called Number 10 Downing Street

>>18002957
> Anyone who isn't retarded, or American, would agree that nuclear weapons should never be used except in the most dire circumstances that threaten their own nation's existence.
why?

>>18002962
>The atom bombs taught a nation of war criminals and racists a lesson to fear ever stepping out of line again.
Should the US being bombed then?

>>18002957
>America does conduct torture on prisoners of war and this is widely document.
Oh and again. Apples and Oranges. There is an ocean of difference between Nanking and Abu Graib. If you do not see that then you are literally retarded.

>>18003093
I'm not answering the same question time and time again. America has done nothing that even comes close to anything the Japs did in their conquest of the Pacific region. Not Abu Graib not even the Mai Lai massacre. It's like comparing a serial killer to a man who murdered someone in a fight and went too far. There is no comparison to the evil that Japan committed probably in the history of modern warfare

>>18002728
They could have surrendered.

>>18003097
>America has done nothing that even comes close to anything the Japs did in their conquest of the Pacific region. Not Abu Graib not even the Mai Lai massacre
The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed 300 000 civilians. Probably more than the massacre of Nanjing.

>>18003101
That's not something the civilians could do. And even if you argue with the Japanese are partly responsible for not surrendering earlier the bombs were still dropped by Americans.

>>18003104
>The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed 300 000 civilians. Probably more than the massacre of Nanjing.
Again if you can't tell the difference between the mass rape and torture and murder of an occupied civilian population Vs "indiscriminate" bombing of a city during war time then there is no hope in having further discourse with you. The Japanese started the war too which is also an important detail.

>>18003141
You're right. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were worse actually. Because the US actively planned to kill as many civilians as possible. Nanjing on the other hand was mostly uncontrolled.

>>18003104
>>18003170
>. Nanjing on the other hand was mostly uncontrolled.
t.sociopath

Same reason why nuke believers can't accept that Tokyo firebombing killed more people and there were no leaflets to warn them about it.
It's made up, fake and gay.

>>18000245 (OP)
the US remains an aggressive militaristic empire run by war criminals, if they admit that was a war crime where will it end?

>>18003185
I'm sorry, it's the historical truth. The Japanese didn't plan to massacre everyone in Nanjing. It happened for various reasons. On the other hand, the Americans planned to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki, hoping it would kill as many as possible. If that makes you feel bad then you need to accept what the US did was wrong.

>>18003229
You're an illiterate ahistorical moron who knows fuck all. The rape of Nanking was implemented by Prince Yasuhiko Asaka. He only got away with it because the "evil " Americans offered amnesty to the Japanese royal family. The cunt should have been strung up and so should you quite frankly for pushing post war jap propaganda. Fucking scumbag.

>>18003246
Read more about it and not just Iris Chang. I said it was mostly uncontrolled. That was the case. No, there was no plan to massacre everyone. The captured soldiers were killed systematically but no there were no orders to kill and rape every civilians. That happened organically. Hiroshima on the other hand was meant to kill as many civilians as possible.

>>18003263
>That happened organically
Yeah sure it did pal. Really nice normal culture that allows something on that scale to " happen organically". it is totally implausible that he was unaware of what was happening but we will never know officially because Japan got off scot free basically. There was never a Japanese equivalent of Nuremberg.


And the intention of the Americans dropping the bomb was to end the war without needing to resort to a land invasion or sustained bombing campaign that would lead to even more lives lost on both sides than the two atom bombs achieved.

>>18001457
I feel sorry for you. You must have headaches all the time from cognative dissonence.

>>18003293
>Really nice normal culture that allows something on that scale to " happen organically".
Huh...yeah? It's quite common when a city falls for the soldiers to loot and rape. The Japanese were particularly low on supplies, the situation in the city was chaotic when the chinese commander fled. Combined with the killing of captured soldiers and anti-guerrila operations it's not that far fetched.
>And the intention of the Americans dropping the bomb was to end the war without needing to resort to a land invasion
The two were never opposed. It wasn't "the bombs or the invasion", the two were meant to go together. And if Americans really wanted to preserve civilian lives they could have just dropped the "unconditional surrender" thing, reassure the emperor that the institution would be maintained. It would probably have saved weeks but Truman didn't do enough.

>>18003303
What dissonence? I'm not the one trying to claim "bombing civilians actually saved lives".

>>18000245 (OP)
Who cares? We won. Might makes right.

>>18003312
>Huh...yeah? It's quite common when a city falls for the soldiers to loot and rape. The Japanese were particularly low on supplies, the situation in the city was chaotic when the chinese commander fled. Combined with the killing of captured soldiers and anti-guerrila operations it's not that far fetched.
Yeah and bayonet babies and stuff. We all do that. Weird can you find any examples of a British battalion doing anything like that?
> It would probably have saved weeks but Truman didn't do enough.
Yeah ok it was the Americans fault for not allowing the Japs to set their own terms of surrender. You're a weird man. Take care fella.

>>18001694
>Hiroshima and Nagasaki were picked as targets because they hadn’t been bombed and nobody expected an attack
Holy shit you're a dumb retard hahahahaha

>Why would they bomb cities that haven't been bombed yet?
>SURELY BECAUSE THEY WANT TO CATCH THE CIVLIANS INSIDE OFF GUARD!
Lmaoooo

>>18003364
>can you find any examples of a British battalion doing anything like that?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voulet%E2%80%93Chanoine_Mission
French but close enough. You can look also how colonial campaigns were conducted in general.
>Yeah ok it was the Americans fault for not allowing the Japs to set their own terms of surrender.
Did they want to avoid civilian causalities or not? Given that the emperor was eventually kept in place then not reassuring them about his fate, when they knew it was a major point of contention, is a crime.

>>18002957
>beating up military aged male hajis is the same as dissecting toddlers while they're still alive

>>18003387
Yeah I knew you couldn't find anything remotely comparable with the Brits.

But notice something about your French example. Other than the fact that the scale is not remotely comparable to what the Japanese did in Nanking Even In the 19th century when word spread about what happened there was immediate disgust among the population and enquiries established while the radicalised population of Japan cheered their own armies atrocities.

>>18003387
>the Japs to set their own terms of surrender.
>Did they want to avoid civilian causalities or not?
In the Nanking massacre scenario the Japanese were an occupying force. In the atom bomb scenarios, America was still at war with Japan.

The Japanese were responsible for the welfare of the civilian population of Nanking during the time of the Nanking massacre.

The Japanese were responsible for the welfare of the civilian population in Japan throughout the entire war.

The Americans saw" the bomb" as an opportunity to end the war militarily and conclusively with relatively minor casualties. The Japanese could and should have surrended. Then the bomb wouldn't have been dropped.


The liability towards the civilian population in both events was with the Japanese and yet the Americans still tried to keep Japanese civilian casualties to a relatively low number given the amount who would have died in a full scale invasion.

>>18003426
>The Japanese were responsible for the welfare of the civilian population of Nanking during the time of the Nanking massacre.
The Japanese were at war with China. With your own logic, China is at fault because Chiang tried to defend Nanking when it wasn't possible. The Chinese should thus have surrendered the city.
>The Americans saw" the bomb" as an opportunity to end the war militarily and conclusively with relatively minor casualties. The Japanese could and should have surrended. Then the bomb wouldn't have been dropped.
They should have surrendered. It was still the Americans who dropped the bomb and committed a war crime. They could very easily have gotten the Japanese to surrender, but they wanted no condition. Countries usually tend to resist when they have no options. It was a mistake and many within the allies criticized that decision.

>>18003433
>The Japanese were at war with China. With your own logic, China is at fault because Chiang tried to defend Nanking when it wasn't possible. The Chinese should thus have surrendered the city.

You're wrong Mr Japanese warcrime apologist. The Nanking massacre began AFTER the surrender of the city.

>>18003437
It began before and after. It's a huge point of discussion among historians who argue about the chronology and the geographical extent of the massacre. The fact is, had Chiant not tried to defend the city, the situation wouldn't have been as chaotic and the massacre wouldn't have been as violent as it was. With your own logic again, the Chinese were at fault for defending Nanking.

>>18000245 (OP)
Americans are propagandized to from childhood that the bombs were necessary and saved lives. They're told stories about how the Japanese were all willing to die to the last man before surrendering. And the atom bombs were magical tools that undid this compulsion.
Anything about how the Germans/Italians/other Axis members could have been characterized the same but didn't need to be nuked is glossed over.
The reality is that the bombs were done to show off American power at the dawn of the Cold War, and that was that.

Americans invariably bring up the Nanjing Massacre when justifying the atomic bombings, but this is nothing more than mere manipulation of public perception.

>>18002797
America chimped out against all of its neighbors, should it be destroyed?

>>18002947
Rigorous source for the Japanese doing that?
That isn't propaganda.

>>18003447
>They're told stories about how the Japanese were all willing to die to the last man before surrendering. And the atom bombs were magical tools that undid this compulsion.
Yeah, this narrative never made any sense. The Japanese were all ready to die en masse but two big bombs were enough to force them to surrender. Obviously, they don't really like the idea it was the soviet attack that prompted the Japanese to surrender.

I’ve read that the Allies, especially the British, somehow got the notion that if they firebombed German working class neighborhoods that the workers would remember they were commies back in the 20s and rise up against the regime. Instead they cheered the Nazi leaders as they drove through the rubble. Terror bombing cities only hardens civilian resolve against the enemy as we’re seeing in Gaza today. It’s just payback, as the Brits wanted to burn Krauts alive because of the blitz, while the Americans favored daylight strategic bombing, which wasn’t especially accurate and caused a lot of collateral damage to neighborhoods next to factories.

>>18000245 (OP)
Americans won
Why would thay?
Only the lost side crimes are considered as such

>>18000245 (OP)
No one actually believes it's not a war crime

>>18003095
The Nanking massacre according to modern scholarship killed around 100,000, that's less than Hiroshima killed

>>18003617
And most of the Nanking massacre was executing PoWs while Hiroshima was just random Jap civilians

>>18003613
Americans do.

>>18003627
Do they actually? I think they claim it was a 'justified war crime' because it was against fascism.
Look at the Americans in this thread, they aren't denying its intent was to murder Jap civilians, they just take gleeful satisfaction in that

>>18002728
All of Japan is cities? There is 0 countryside at all?

>>18003455
>America chimped out against all of its neighbors
Got a time frame? Was it within a decade or over a century? Yes it is relevant.

>>18003630
>its intent was to murder Jap civilians
The intent was to force Japan's hand to unconditionally surrender.
Can you prove this claim that the US government intentionally made to bomb to specifically kill Japanese civilians?

>>18003445
no that isn't my logic. That's a retarded distortion of what I have said today. Murdering civilians deliberately when you are an occupying force is a different bullgame to whatever the yanks in their depravity over the years ever did.

And when the Chinese and Koreans and everyone else did surrender the Japs still abused them and murdered and raped. Get that into your thick skull.

>>18003445
If the city surrendered, why did the Japanese still murder random civilians? There was 0 justification for that.

>>18003643
>>18003652
You have photographic evidence yes?
Like we have plenty of photographic evidence of Soviets raping and murdering civilians who surrendered to them

>>18003641
Well no the US created WMDs with the goal of killing German and Italian civilians. They used it against Japan because they thought it would be a waste if they didn't I suppose

>>18003459
>>18003447
Orders directly from your living Sun-God Emperor will tend to sway the populous from fanaticism.
So soldiers fighting to the last man on several islands in the Pacific, feigning surrender only to blow themselves up hoping to take more soldiers with them, using civilians as human shields and strapping bombs to them (which they did to Okinawans) isn't fanatism?
>Soviet invasion
An undersupplied starving mainland army doesn't really put up a good fight. If it was the Soviet invasion why did the Emperor specifically say it was the bombs?

>>18003660
>the US created WMDs with the goal of killing German and Italian civilians
Can you prove this claim as well?

>>18003657
>Japanese never harmed civilians intentionally at all. Not a single civilian was ever intentionally harmed by a Japanese soldier.
Trolling outside of /b/ is against the rules.

>>18003676
So do you have photographic evidence or no?

>>18003676
I can provide photographic evidence of Asiatics committing rape. But these Asiatics were your allies

>>18003657
>You have photographic evidence yes?
There is quite a lot, yes. The Japs tried to suppress a lot of it but there is still a lot out there.
>Like we have plenty of photographic evidence of Soviets raping and murdering civilians who surrendered to them
The allies were not at war with the soviet union and I'll repeat again even the war crimes of the Soviet Union were not on the same scale as what Japan did between 1937 ( or earlier) and 1945 and the soviet union was evil as fuck. It was also a country that had been invaded and occupied which is a very different context to japan.

>>18003686
>the war crimes of the Soviet Union were not on the same scale as what Japan did
Would you say that if you were locked in one of their starvation cages?

>>18003690
if I knew the facts as I know them today then yes. Why would my subjective experience of the soviet union need to affect my objective judgement?

>>18003682
I mean that doesn't look like rape, do you have photographic evidence of soldiers actually committing rape during the war?

>>18003677
Answer a simple question, do you think the Japanese never intentionally harmed a civilian? Yes or no?

>>18003705
Like you want photos of dead women with blood coming from their crotch area? Because those exist. I don't know if I can post on a blue board though

>>18003711
What I believe doesn't matter, what matters is whether you have photographic evidence to substantiate your claim.
Let's say I actually am a Japanese ultranationalist who believes not a single warcrime was committed. Ok, why not post the evidence to BTFO me?

>>18003714
But can you prove those photos were a result of rape specifically from Soviet soldiers? How do I know it wasn't just a rape victim?

>>18003725
I see, we're just playing the clown now. To be expected from a Russian sympathizer

>>18003729
So you cannot? Why not?

>>18003739
Sorry but I've lost interest in speaking to underhumans for the day. If you want to defend Soviet rapists you'll have to find someone else to entertain you

>>18003743
Still don't see any evidence. Must be a false claim.

>>18003752
Still haven't taken Kyiv after three years BTW

>>18003755
Yes and? Just playing devil's advocate like>>18003720 if there is no photos of something it never happened. Everything before photos existed also never happened btw.

>>18003669
>If it was the Soviet invasion why did the Emperor specifically say it was the bombs?
Why did he only mention the soviet attack in his declaration to the japanese soldiers?
http://www.taiwandocuments.org/surrender07.htm

>>18003773
And why did he only mention the Americans when talking to his subjects?

>>18001720
Why was Japan entitled to American resources? We saw their barbarism and decided we didn’t want to support it.

>>18001720
>civilian targets
Still haven't found a proof to the claim American specifically targeted civilians

>>18003387
Loosers do not get to set terms. It was Japan's fault for starting the war and when the writing was on the wall they could of easily stopped it yet refused out of pride.

>>18003909
It was easy for him to claim he was protecting the population from american weapons. He needed the soldiers to understand why the situation was strategically catastrophic. Obviously, the war with the Soviets had much bigger implications than a big bomb.

>>18004060
>Obviously, the war with the Soviets had much bigger implications than a big bomb.
>obviously
Loosing their foothold in China and Korea wasn't going to hurt Japan. Japan getting bombed hurt Japan more.

>>18000245 (OP)
war is a crime, its just murder with some fancy explanation. War, if to be waged, should be fought all out no exceptions, otherwise dont bother.

>>18003993
nigger it was a nuke

>>18004461
>Loosing their foothold in China and Korea wasn't going to hurt Japan.
Japan was losing everything they had taken a century to conquer. They were losing land populated by japanese people. They also could no longer hope to use the Soviets to mediate some kind of peace. Of course it had a much bigger impact than one big bomb.

>>18001029
Why didn't the burgers drop the nuke right on the imperial palace? They could have, right?

>>18005207
Because it was in Tokyo. Tokyo and Kyoto were initially considered as potential targets but were quickly ruled out as these cities were considered too important culturally.

>>18003993
That was the strategy of Lemay that the US adopted when bombing Japan

>>18003930
>Why was Japan entitled to American resources?
I never said that. However it is a fact that if you cut off the necessary resources a nation relies on that is an act of war
>We saw their barbarism
Anti-Japanese propaganda

>>18003437
Nanking massacre never happened

>>18003380
>no counter argument
kindly kys

>>18002811
Nanking massacre never happened and Japan made Manchukuo into a prosperous nation. You’re an idiot and don’t know what you’re talking about

>>18005212
It was total war so who cares?

>>18002797
>>Chimp out
Not an argument
>>Invade all your neighbors
Japan was invading China because they’re at war
>>Kill millions of people
People die in war. It’s not Japan’s fault that chinks suck at war
>>Attack America because they didn't want to give you more oil
Japan was forced into war with the US because FDR cut off the resources Japan needed for its survival
>>NOO IT'S NOT FAIR WHY ARE YOU BOMBING US
That’s the mentality Americans have towards Pearl Harbor even though they brought it on themselves

>>18005219
They likely served as backup targets in case Japan didn't surrender at Hiroshima and Nagasaki

>>18005221
Yeah fair enough I reckon.

>>18005221
For the record btw I'm glad they didn't nuke Tokyo and Kyoto, I'm just trying to put myself in their position here.

>>18005214
Refusing to trade with someone is not an ‘act of war.’ It just isn’t. As for the anti Japanese propaganda? Japan didn’t even conceal what they were doing in China. We didn’t want to participate. So we stopped trading supplies to them. That’s their problem to sort out, not ours, and it’s definitely not an act of war like for example launching a surprise attack against a fleet in harbor before war was declared. Oh well. At least the nukes were pretty lulzy.

>>18005214
>if you cut off the necessary resources a nation relies on that is an act of war
Can you prove this claim? When has this ever been established? When does the line get crossed? Say Japan needs more oil than it was already getting is Japan justified in invading the US and taking the oil America needs since Japan needs it more? Is a starving man entitles to steal from a grocery store?

>>18005220
>Japan needed for its survival
You keep making this claim, how was oil essential to the Japanese civilian economy? A vast majority of that oil was going to the army and navy for their unjust wars of blatant conquest, not for survival.

>>18003676
does falseflagging count as trolling?

>>18001720
>Hiroshima and Nagasaki were civilian targets
Wrong. Infrastructure, factories, and other facilities are entirely justified as military targets. Cope and seethe more.
>muh embargo
Japanese are not entitled to American oil to attack sovereign nations. Aggressive nations are not entitled to mercy after a deliberate sneak attack on a neutral country. The Empire was not entitled to anything except total obliteration.

>>18005512
>Wrong. Infrastructure, factories, and other facilities are entirely justified as military targets
Good thing the US dropped a nuke on those things. It was so precise.

>>18005543
>I want precise strategic bombing with early 20th century technology.
Not going to happen which is why Americans told the civilians to leave all the cities.

>>18005220
>even though they brought it on themselves
Not selling oil isn't a reason to attack someone. If a store owner see's a criminal attack someone he has every right to close his store to said criminal. Why is Japan entitled to American oil?

>>18005119
>Japan was losing everything they had taken a century to conquer.
>century
Japanese main islands were never threatened by the Chinese. Losing a colony is detrimental but it won't threaten the nation state of Japan's survival which you keep claiming.

The USA created nuclear bombs and then pretend like they have God on ther side lmao

>>18005885
>Japanese main islands were never threatened by the Chinese.
It was by the Soviets. Besides, Korea had been annexed and was part of Japan with millions of Japanese living there and the peninsula was vital for the ressources in both food and coal. You also fail to understand the Japanese wanted to negotiate with the USSR and that obviously wasn't possible anymore.

>>18001006
Neither had happened. Both are post war myths created to justify the post war investments in those countries. So the (((banks))) are behind it.

>>18005941
It was never possible. Everyone always forgets it was Stalin at the Yalta Conference that lobbied to accept nothing but unconditional surrender to Germany AND Japan.

In U.S. culture wars, calling Hiroshima a war crime can get framed as anti-American.

>>18006104
It doesn't matter if it was possible or not. The Japanese thought they could use the rising tensions between the allies. When the USSR attacked it was a huge shock for them.

>>18006248
>The Japanese thought
They thought a lot of things. Doesn't make them right or true. Like bombing industrial cities supporting the war effort being a war crime.

Counterargument:
Nukes are fucking cool

>>18006472
That has nothing to do with what the Japanese thought. Anyone can realize bombing civilians is wrong. What matters is that it also could have been easily avoided.

>>18000245 (OP)
Because they fucked around, and found out

>>18006883
With the atomic bombs, Americans killed as many civilians as the Japanese did with the Nanking massacre. How is it not a war crime exactly?

>>18001003
honestly a lot of them do, which is why most Japanese people don't rabidly hate America

>>18006915
Yeah no. Don't try to go there with them. They'd be shocked to know some Americans even today defend the idea of dropping the bombs on civilians.

>>18006938
they'd be shocked to know anything, Japanese are some of the most ignorant and propagandized people on earth. a lot of them literally believe the war was about Japan defending itself.

>>18006943
No most of them know what Japan was doing was wrong. But they won't buy it when you try to argue that bombing civilians was fine actually. The old at Ghibli (Takahata and Miyazaki) who aren't the biggest fans of imperial Japan would probably be disgusted by Americans in this thread.

>>18000245 (OP)
>war crime
>in total war

>>18006956
Neither Japan nor Germany committed war crimes then?

>>18006964
They were aggressors. If someone attacks you with a knife, you have the right to shoot him.

>>18001003
I don't know about deserve, but when I visited they seemed obsessed with the nuclear aspect of the bombing rather than about the victims. From what I heard, a lot of the survivors were shunned by Japanese society as well.

>>18006982
Yeah. You can't shoot his wife and kids to make him stop.

>>18007019
If it works then yeah.

>>18006879
>it also could have been easily avoided.
Yes it could have, all Japan had to do was unconditionally surrender yet they refused.

>>18007573
Americans dropped the bomb. You can't avoid any kind of responsibility for what happened. That's pure hypocrisy.

>>18007582
>You can't avoid any kind of responsibility for what happened.
Sure I can. I wasn't born yet, imbecile.

>>18006879
Bombing civilians is right if it ends war. There is no place for morality in pollitics.

>>18007774
Your country existed before you.
>>18007838
You could end the war without bombing anyone.

>>18007850
>You could end the war without bombing anyone.
how

>>18007850
What could America do to Japan to get them to unconditionally surrender? Be very specific now.

>>18001024
>nukes nuclear weapons mass destruction fake hoax atomic 2.jpg
lol

>>18007873
>>18007911
By clearly stating in the Postdam declaration that the monarchy would be maintained like Stimson had advised. And wait for the USSR to declare war on Japan.

>>18000245 (OP)
It's still being debated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes_in_World_War_II
>However the decision by the United States to drop nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki is still debated to this day on whether it could amount to war crimes or crimes against humanity.

>>18001029
>Anyway, if you want to call it an atrocity you can, but it doesn't matter regardless.
The nuclear bombing of civilians is considered an atrocity in the Second Vatican Council document Gaudium et Spes, the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World issued by Pope Paul VI on December 7, 1965. This determination was made a full 20 years after the end of WWII and was a general condemnation of nuclear bombing.

https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_en.html
>80. The horror and perversity of war is immensely magnified by the addition of scientific weapons. For acts of war involving these weapons can inflict massive and indiscriminate destruction, thus going far beyond the bounds of legitimate defense. Indeed, if the kind of instruments which can now be found in the armories of the great nations were to be employed to their fullest, an almost total and altogether reciprocal slaughter of each side by the other would follow, not to mention the widespread devastation that would take place in the world and the deadly after effects that would be spawned by the use of weapons of this kind.

>Any act of war aimed indiscriminately at the destruction of entire cities of extensive areas along with their population is a crime against God and man himself. It merits unequivocal and unhesitating condemnation.

>>18007956
Good thing the nomb specifically targeted military targets and the civilians were sadly collateral

>>18007939
keep going and going. Don't just make it look like you want to win online argument.

>>18005941
>It was by the Soviets
With what navy?

>>18010048
The one they used to take the Kurils. It didn't matter wether or not they could actually conquer Hokkaido. The Japanese couldn't fight on multiple fronts and they would lose more and more with the Soviets in the equation.