Why is America given shit over Nagasaki and Hiroshima?

[Auxora]

This thread comes up from time to time. Apart from the atrocities Japan did on China and other places (use/testing of chemical and biological weapons, torture and killing of POWs, rapes, etc.), the only reason to complain about Nagasaki and Hiroshima is if people forgot or don't understand the situation in the war at the time. This was coming after Iwo Jima and Okinawa with massive casualties on both sides, where the Japanese soldiers fought like radicalized ISIS soldiers to the death. On the mainland, Japan was training and ready to arm all civilians in case of an invasion. Estimates were that to defeat the Japanese mainland on the ground building to building like Germany, it would cost around 1.1 million Japanese lives and 200k US lives. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki ended the war with less than a quarter of that number of Japanese deaths and 0 US deaths. Additionally, a ground defeat of Japan would have left the entire country in ruins and would have taken far longer to recover from after the war.

Plus, war at the time was not like war today. The conventional bombing of Dresden in the picture below by the allies over Germany by some estimates killed more civilians in one night than the Nagasaki bombing did. But it's not mentioned nearly as often simply because it was conventional and not atomic.

[Independent voter]

"War crimes" depends a lot on who is doing the judging. Almost any act of war is a crime in Sweden while in Russia few acts in war are war crimes.

[Wildtree]

The conventional bombing of Dresden in the picture below by the allies over Germany by some estimates killed more civilians in one night than the Nagasaki bombing did. But it's not mentioned nearly as often simply because it was conventional and not atomic.

I cannot agree with that.
It's mentioned just as much. If anything, Dresden stands as THE prime example of what conventional warfare, particularly extensive carpet bombing causes. So much for that..
Secondly, the photo shows the city after the 4 air raids took place, between February 13 - 15.. not just one raid.
And speaking of one night. The casualties total from all 4 raids combined is around 25.000.. So, not anywhere close to Nagasaki.

[Deleted]

Lol you are misinformed.

Nazi's killed everyone that was not desired, black, jews, gypsy's, political, gay, disabled people ( https://www.ushmm.org/learn/students...f-the-nazi-era ) . And still if the bombs did not drop the japanese would have kept fighting and more would have died. and read up on comfort women and what the japanese did to them...will think you will feel allot more sorry then.

Having read a few of your posts it seems you are completely incapable of separating the lives of the civilians of Hiroshima and Nagasaki from that of the japanese imperial army. Every single country in the world has people who have comitted war crimes, hell, the US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan did too on several occasions. They also tried to cover it up as wikileaks showed. Should you be blown up and the land you lived on be made hazardous to humans for the next several hundred years because someone you never met did something deplorable?

[Shadowferal]

Ofcourse that is a warcrime...
They are not soldiers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions It's all there.

Yeah, including the revisions made after WWII...

[Deleted]

This really is an over simplification. I don't think it addresses the point at hand, and its just grossly incorrect. If someone threatens me with a gun, then I pull out a gun and kill them with it, all other things being equal I'm morally superior to them, since they threatened me and I'm defending myself.

If someone threatens you with a weapon you know to be unloaded and you pull your gun and kill them, are you still morally superior?

[Allybeboba]

That's just retarded.
They were terrorist actions against innocent civilians. War crimes.
Educate yourself.

Care to explain to us what part was a "warcrime" in 1945.

- - - Updated - - -

I cannot agree with that.
It's mentioned just as much. If anything, Dresden stands as THE prime example of what conventional warfare, particularly extensive carpet bombing causes. So much for that..
Secondly, the photo shows the city after the 4 air raids took place, between February 13 - 15.. not just one raid.
And speaking of one night. The casualties total from all 4 raids combined is around 25.000.. So, not anywhere close to Nagasaki.

Dresden was "fine" because it took place over a longer period?

[Deleted]

Exterminating foreign people on foreign (their) soil using chemicals is indeed chemical warfare, hence war crimes.

Going to conventional war with another country isn't a war crime as such.

That reasoning is faulty, the German forces did not use Gas attacks because they feared retaliation, if the holocaust would be considered "chemical warfare" you could bet your ass that the other factions would start using gas too. I don't think you are being correct here.
It's a warcrime for a different reason, not because they used gas to kill them.

I'd like to get some sort of text that states "you are herby sentenced to death for instigating
chemical wrfare" or something, similar.. otherwise I really doubt it that they were executed for anything other than the evil they did itself.

[Allybeboba]

This thread comes up from time to time. Apart from the atrocities Japan did on China and other places (use/testing of chemical and biological weapons, torture and killing of POWs, rapes, etc.), the only reason to complain about Nagasaki and Hiroshima is if people forgot or don't understand the situation in the war at the time. This was coming after Iwo Jima and Okinawa with massive casualties on both sides, where the Japanese soldiers fought like radicalized ISIS soldiers to the death. On the mainland, Japan was training and ready to arm all civilians in case of an invasion. Estimates were that to defeat the Japanese mainland on the ground building to building like Germany, it would cost around 1.1 million Japanese lives and 200k US lives. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki ended the war with less than a quarter of that number of Japanese deaths and 0 US deaths. Additionally, a ground defeat of Japan would have left the entire country in ruins and would have taken far longer to recover from after the war.

Plus, war at the time was not like war today. The conventional bombing of Dresden in the picture below by the allies over Germany by some estimates killed more civilians in one night than the Nagasaki bombing did. But it's not mentioned nearly as often simply because it was conventional and not atomic.

People don't care what could have happened if we didn't drop the bombs they just care if bashing America's actions. What we do know is that Germany for sure killed millions of innocent people by committing warcrimes and people don't want to talk about that.

[Independent voter]

One thing in our defense is we gave 10 days warning to everyone in Japan before we dropped the bomb on Hiroshima. We didn't give a time or place we just said we were going to nuke a city.

[Deleted]

To use your style of black and white logic -

You just compared the US in 2001 to Japan in 1945.

See any issues with that?

Sure. The US was a larger military threat to the people who committed 9/11 than Japan was to the US when the bombs were dropped.

[Allybeboba]

That's just retarded.
They were terrorist actions against innocent civilians. War crimes.
Educate yourself.

How was it a terrorist action? It was a military installation with military factories inside of a city. We were at war. It's not like we backstabbed them we actually warned them it was coming.

[AeneasBK]

I cannot agree with that.
It's mentioned just as much. If anything, Dresden stands as THE prime example of what conventional warfare, particularly extensive carpet bombing causes. So much for that..

If you didn't get the impression that "In America"; or "In America we're taught" was a prefix or suffix to most of the sentences in the post you quoted....

[Independent voter]

Sure. The US was a larger military threat to the people who committed 9/11 than Japan was to the US when the bombs were dropped.

LOS ALAMOS, N.M. — When a captured Nazi U-boat arrived at Portsmouth, N.H., toward the end of World War II, the American public was never told the significance of what was on board.

The German submarine was carrying 1,200 pounds of uranium oxide, ingredients for an atomic bomb, bound for Japan. Two Japanese officers on board were allowed to commit suicide.

Two months later, in the New Mexico desert, the United States detonated the first atomic bomb, a prelude to the obliteration of two Japanese cities.

Unknown to many of the people who built those bombs, not to mention the public, Japan was scrambling to build its own nuclear weapon.

I don't how you people can be so naive. Also it's humiliating to Japan when you say they were an unworthy opponent.

[SidFwuff]

Ofcourse that is a warcrime...
They are not soldiers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions It's all there.

Most of the protection of civilians wasn't added to the Geneva Coventions until after WWII.

This is why Firebombing was legal and used by just about everyone in WWII.

I find the criticism by many of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to be either hypocritical or ignorant because it ignores and disrespects those that died to suffocation all over Europe and Japan throughout World War II. Firebombing, by the way, is the tactic of dropping high explosives upon civilian roads and bridges to prevent ambulances and firetrucks from operating when incendiaries bombs are then dropped upon the city. The resulting inferno then sucks away all the oxygen, killing civilians through suffocation.

You know, real civilized.

At least 25,000 civilians were killed in a single raid on Dresden, Germany. That's rather small- estimates for a single firebombing raid on Tokyo on the 9th of March 1945 commonly cites around 100,000+ killed.

As an article on Wired points out, this raid was the deadliest in WWII- including Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Why do the people that died to incendiaries instead of an atomic bomb not matter?

[Allybeboba]

That reasoning is faulty, the German forces did not use Gas attacks because they feared retaliation, if the holocaust would be considered "chemical warfare" you could bet your ass that the other factions would start using gas too. I don't think you are being correct here.
It's a warcrime for a different reason, not because they used gas to kill them.

I'd like to get some sort of text that states "you are herby sentenced to death for instigating
chemical wrfare" or something, similar.. otherwise I really doubt it that they were executed for anything other than the evil they did itself.

Did Germany use gas to kill millions of innocent people? Yes or no...
More than all the people that were killed by Americans combined in both WW 1 and 2.

- - - Updated - - -

Most of the protection of civilians wasn't added to the Geneva Coventions until after WWII.

This is why Firebombing was legal and used by just about everyone in WWII.

I find the criticism by many of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to be either hypocritical or ignorant because it ignores and disrespects those that died to suffocation all over Europe and Japan throughout World War II. Firebombing, by the way, is the tactic of dropping high explosives upon civilian roads and bridges to prevent ambulances and firetrucks from operating when incendiaries bombs are then dropped upon the city. The resulting inferno then sucks away all the oxygen, killing civilians through suffocation.

You know, real civilized.

At least 25,000 civilians were killed in a single raid on Dresden, Germany. That's rather small- estimates for a single firebombing raid on Tokyo on the 9th of March 1945 commonly cites around 100,000+ killed.

As an article on Wired points out, this raid was the deadliest in WWII- including Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Why do the people that died to incendiaries instead of an atomic bomb not matter?

I have already pointed that out multiple times. It was ignored. It will likely be ignored again. Facts, do not change some people's opinion.

[Deleted]

LOS ALAMOS, N.M. — When a captured Nazi U-boat arrived at Portsmouth, N.H., toward the end of World War II, the American public was never told the significance of what was on board.

The German submarine was carrying 1,200 pounds of uranium oxide, ingredients for an atomic bomb, bound for Japan. Two Japanese officers on board were allowed to commit suicide.

Two months later, in the New Mexico desert, the United States detonated the first atomic bomb, a prelude to the obliteration of two Japanese cities.

Unknown to many of the people who built those bombs, not to mention the public, Japan was scrambling to build its own nuclear weapon.

I don't how you people can be so naive. Also it's humiliating to Japan when you say they were an unworthy opponent.

I'm not saying they were an unworthy opponent. I'm saying they were already beaten.

[Deleted]

Ok listen snowflakes , in love and in war , everything is acceptable , now you might ask '' Indeed , but killing civilians is not acceptable''. Well , the guy who is stronger can do what he wants and the weaker guy has to endure it, simple as that. US decided to kill civilians to save its own soldiers , it may not be the decision of the public , but it was the decision of the government back then. If people back then wanted to do something , the government officials would be hanged. But since people are hypocrites, and so some of you , no-one really cared.

[Marcellus1986]

If it happened today, it would be a war crime, you defending those actions is basically condoning a war crime. Lets look at other examples, hundreds of years ago racism and slavery were the done thing. Now they are crimes. Do you condone those racist slave owners just because at the time it was not illegal? If you think that those actions were not racist just because there was no law defining them as such then what does that say about you?

This is 1945 when it happened. As someone else pointed out, the civilian protections were added in after ww2 specifically because of all the targeting of cities/civilians. It isn't a war crime and you can't judge it as such.

Also, lol at you comparing apples/oranges.

[judgementofantonidas]

Because Japan was on the cusp of Surrender and America just wanted to flex its dick and killed 100000's of Civilians.

Japan refused to surrender even once defeat was a foregone conclusion.
Japan refused to surrender even after the first bomb evaporated it's city.
Japan only surrendered after having two cities removed from the face of the earth.