Why is America given shit over Nagasaki and Hiroshima?

[BannedForViews]

fighting fire with fire is hypocritical if you want to claim the moral high ground.

Why are people always so concerned with moral high ground. I can be moral after Im safe.

[Docturphil]

Ahh that age old saying 'Two wrongs most definitely make a right', oh wait, that's not how it goes is it...?

That's a very ignorant oversimplification of the matter. Tell me, what do you think would happen if we would have just pulled out of Japan and left them alone? A "wrong", as you described it, had to be done at some point in order to end the war.

[ParanoiD84]

The bombs probably saved alot of lifes in the long run, the japanese fighting to the death for the emperor kamikaze style and all that.

[Allybeboba]

If you treat People like they did under the Treaty of Versailles you dont expect them to simply accept their fate do you ?

The War had many Fathers.. but its easier to put everything on One Country, hey worked with WW1 lets do it again for WW2.

Germany lost WW1 just as they lost WW2. Those are the consequences a country faces when they lose a war.
Look what happened to Japan. We still have bases there to this day. Just as we have bases in Germany.

[Logwyn]

While technically true, Germany did breach the Treaty of Versailles with the remilitarization of the Rhineland.

Too bad France didn't go... Oh no you don't. Things would have been different.

[Eazy]

Because killing the murderers is a one thing and killing the innocent families with the atomic bomb is another.

[Logwyn]

Germany did not start the War... Why after so many Years People still type this fucking nonsense?

Who started the war then if Germany didn't start it?

[McFuu]

No one really gives a shit about the nuclear bomb drops. Only people on the internet who think the US owes something to another country who would have done the exact same thing if they had the bomb first.

Also there were multiple points that could be considered the "start" of WWII. The biggest event was Germany's invasion of Poland, which mobilized efforts against their expansion. Germany occupied Czechoslovakia and Austria as well, but no one seemed to care. Although Italy was involved politically with occupying Slovakia so you could also point at that as a multi-state move. 1936-37 also had Japan entering China, which Russia and the US both aided China during this time. So really the best start point will always be the invasion of Poland.
It's kind of like saying the US entered the war in 1939 because that's when it was secretly aiding England and France, or the Lend-Lease Program in 1941. But really, even though there were "pre entry" casualties for the US, Pearl Harbor marks our entry into the War.

[Allybeboba]

I punch you, you take my legs off with a shotgun in retaliation, justifiable?

If that what it takes to put you down. And that is what it was going to take to put Japan down. They had sworn to fight to the last person with pointy sticks. They regarded the Emporer as a god. Up until the US defeated them that word had no meaning to them. Japan had never lost a war in their history.

- - - Updated - - -

Who started the war then if Germany didn't start it?

He may say Italy.
As I stated, Germany breached the Treaty of Versailles. WW2 in Europe did not start with a singular event.

We know who ended it though.

[cubby]

Just because someone does something shitty doesn't mean you get a free pass to do something shitty as well.

But those actions weren't shitty. It was a choice between dropping them and getting unconditional surrender or losing another 500k soldiers as every citizen of Japan took up arms. The emperor would never have agreed to it otherwise.

The issues of influencing Stalin and showing off to the world, while valid, are secondary.

[Docturphil]

Because killing the murderers is a one thing and killing the innocent families with the atomic bomb is another.

But surely at some point the value of a certain number of soldiers becomes more valuable than a single child. How many soldiers is a child worth? 2? 3? 100? At some point it becomes highly morally questionable to place the life of a child above so many other lives.

Try to imagine yourself in the shoes of Truman having the option presented to you. Do you drop the atomic bomb in the hopes that the overall loss of life is less than a land invasion? Or do you send in hundreds of thousands of American troops to an almost certain death to kill many more Japanese, which by the way will pretty much guaranteed still end up being some innocent families? It's not just a simple question of whether or not it's OK to end the life of an innocent family. It's much more complicated than that.

[spanishninja]

Which country hasn't tried to genocide another country. I'm fairly sure every country in the world had at least one genocide in their past.

so you casually dismiss a mass genocide by Japan in the 30-40s and are still huffing and puffing about two bombs that killed much fewer people?

Let me remind you guys of some other things that were done in the China massacres:

1) bayonet competitions among the Imperial soldiers
2) shoving and then breaking glass bottles inside Chinese female genitalia
3) mass ditches of corpses (pretty tame compared to 1 and 2)
4) experimentation on Chinese civilians

and a lot more! I would gladly pick being killed by an atomic bomb over any of the things listed above. In terms of the "innocent civilian" card, Japan has a lot less to cry about than the countries that it fucked over, and it knows it too, which is why you don't see Japanese people whine about the atomic bombs on their video game message boards.

[alexkeren]

Japan raped its way across China and was in league with a nation that wanted to commit genocide on those it deemed impure, alcoholics, addicts and so on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre

They did horrible things that make the atomic bombs look like vacation. While the civilians were not directly guilty ( they still fed those soldiers, produced their weapons and ensured they had a place to retreat to ) of all those things, they were still what kept the army afloat.

So why exactly is it wrong, in a war against an axis of tyrants and psychopaths, to fight fire with fire? Had the Axis won we'd have seen hundreds of millions killed due to their race. Two atomic bombs are a small price to pay in order to quell that evil for good.


What kind of General could look the wives of his fallen soldiers in the eyes and say

'' We could've ended the war sooner. Your husband would still be alive, had I bombed their cities. But I put the lives of their civilians, the ones that feed the army, above that of my own men. "

Holy hell, I'd see that as treason. As the military leader your main goal is to kill the enemy and protect your own men/nation. And that's precisely what they did.

Although I am neither angry, nor happy, we dropped the nukes I at least have a far superior grasp of why they were dropped than you. It was known already that Japan was surrendering, they were stuck on islands and we could have blockaded and sieged.

The real reason we nuked was to keep Russia away from the negotiating table after seeing what happened to Germany post surrendering.

[Allybeboba]

Too bad France didn't go... Oh no you don't. Things would have been different.

Just as now, they were not politically stable enough to do anything about it.

[Deleted]

Germany lost WW1 just as they lost WW2. Those are the consequences a country faces when they lose a war.
Look what happened to Japan. We still have bases there to this day. Just as we have bases in Germany.

Well Germany is a non sovereign Nation still under US occupation. Doesnt seem much better

Germany is nothing but a Puppet nowadays... No Constitution after 68 Years. But i guess Peple are too busy to ignore that Bullshit

[Aliven]

I like the term used here "educate yourself" please take your own advice.

They may have been blocked but they absolutely did refuse to surrender.

And i said something contrary? I said the war would not spin for another x years. The goverment was already divided, people were tired of war.

Japan would surrender very soon. Mather of months. And they dont have any means to attack or retaliate. Their navy was in shambles, their planes were broken.

Also, as i said, order to drop bomb went on before japan refused total capitulation.

[Allybeboba]

Well Germany is a non sovereign Nation still under US occupation. Doesnt seem much better

Guess Germany should not have been went to war with it's European neighbors again.

[Docturphil]

so you casually dismiss a mass genocide by Japan in the 30-40s and are still huffing and puffing about two bombs that killed much fewer people?

I don't believe full on genocide was ever the intent. As a matter of fact, one of the goals of the dropping of the atomic bombs was to avoid genocide. Whether or not it was the best decision is up for debate, but one of the motivations was to reduce the overall loss of life.

Edit: Completely misread that. Forget what I said.

[spanishninja]

I don't believe full on genocide was ever the intent. As a matter of fact, one of the goals of the dropping of the atomic bombs was to avoid genocide. Whether or not it was the best decision is up for debate, but one of the motivations was to reduce the overall loss of life.

yes, unlike what the Japanese doing for 2 decades.

[Docturphil]

The real reason we nuked...

"The real reason"... as if there was only one.