Why is America given shit over Nagasaki and Hiroshima?

[Shadowferal]

Your information is also wrong. Japan did not surrender because of the two nuclear bombs, they only fueled the urge to defend their homeland. What ended the war was Japan losing key staging points in the Russia front, which would've turned out in a two front war.

As someone else pointed out, the bombing was part of the reasons for surrender, while the other was Russia.
Essentially, Japan was caught in a vise.

[Kathranis]

Japan was different from Hitler's regime

Different in ideology, but not very different in method. The Japanese Empire was driven by military expansionism and intense xenophobia, and many of the atrocities commited by the Nazi regime were mirrored by the atrocities commited by the Japanese across the Pacific Theater, sometimes on an even greater scale. Particularily in terms of genocide, rape, forced labor, and illegal human experimentation.

[Allenseiei]

Another factor that was surely in everyone's mind at the time: when facing a determined foe like the Japanese, there's value in really making it clear that you've won. There is a lot of value in making sure that no one can look back and say that the generals gave up too soon, because if not you run the risk of facing a resurgent opponent in a generation (see: Germany, World War I). A thorough, humiliating defeat also makes the adverse consequences of war real for the populace at home.

Japan in World War II was a country headed in dangerous direction for the stability of the globe. They needed to be thoroughly defeated in order to spur the radical changes necessary for the safety of other countries. Hiroshima and Nagasaki put an exclamation mark on the defeat in a way that otherwise could have only been accomplished by a costly invasion of Japan itself. And if you look at the results, Japan changed, and became a highly productive and cooperative nation in today's global marketplace.

Germany resurfaced because of the huge payment they had to pay to France in WWI. It was war or continue in poverty since their factories and most of their coal was given to France in the surrender. They couldn't pay the debt ever.
What changed in Germany in WWII was that they recieved help to reconstruct themselves so they were able to pay the war debt.
Japan was highly productive before WWII, that wasn't a result. Japan recieved the same sanctions or similar ones as Germany, but Germany didn't get nuked in the process. Also Japan had a lot of factories running, especially in the Nagasaki prefacture, since you know... the bomb never hit them.

- - - Updated - - -

As someone else pointed out, the bombing was part of the reasons for surrender, while the other was Russia.
Essentially, Japan was caught in a vise.

Japan had already planned to defend the island after the nuclear bombings. They were also ready to censure the Emperor. The last nail in the coffin was indeed the Russia front, but they weren't going to surrender because of the nuclear bombs, afterall the Nagasaki bomb didn't hit any military instalations.

- - - Updated - - -

Different in ideology, but not very different in method. The Japanese Empire was driven by military expansionism and intense xenophobia, and many of the atrocities commited by the Nazi regime were mirrored by the atrocities commited by the Japanese across the Pacific Theater, sometimes on an even greater scale. Particularily in terms of genocide, rape, forced labor, and illegal human experimentation.

Indeed the atrocities were there, was nuking them the solution then? Germans didn't need a free nuke to change their goverments.

[Kathranis]

I think that it was the right decision, rather than prolonging the war (and the firebombing of civilians that was already going on) given that the Japanese would likely not have surrendered in the face of conventional warfare without a strong show of power.

However, the loss of civilian life and long-term impact of the bombs is unquestionable, and I don't think anyone on either side of the conflict deserves a free pass. At the same time, hindsight is 20:20 and Japan is an almost completely different country (even using a different flag) from the Japanese Empire of World War II, which I think skews people's perspectives.

Nagasaki and Hiroshima also undoubtedly showed the entire world the consequences of nuclear warfare and have resulted in decades of nuclear detterence. If it hadn't been the US nuking Japan, it would have been someone else being nuked by another nuclear super power. There was always going to be a first time; there's no way of knowing what losses of life those two bombs prevented as a result of being the first (and hopefully last).

[Recyclebin]

They did not use chemical warfare.
And we can be glad nobody did that, WW1 was freaking terrible enough.


That's probably because you surround yourself with people that are likeminded.
Nuking two cities is probably the most hideous thing the US has done last century.

Nope. I also ment online. Even in the worlds biggest SJW dens everyone seems to bitch about alot of other stuff before that.

[PACOX]

Different in ideology, but not very different in method. The Japanese Empire was driven by military expansionism and intense xenophobia, and many of the atrocities commited by the Nazi regime were mirrored by the atrocities commited by the Japanese across the Pacific Theater, sometimes on an even greater scale. Particularily in terms of genocide, rape, forced labor, and illegal human experimentation.

Japan had an equal, if not worse human experimentation program than Germany's.

[Kathranis]

Indeed the atrocities were there, was nuking them the solution then? Germans didn't need a free nuke to change their goverments.

The Germans didn't have the same medieval honor-based ideology as the Japanese, though. The Japanese were already employing kamikaze pilots, commiting suicide rather than being captured, and were ordered to fight to the death rather than retreat.

I honestly believe that the nuclear bombs were probably a mercy compared to the prolonged firebombing and urban warfare that would likely have happened across mainland Japan if the war hadn't been ended swiftly and decisively.

Even in terms of the radiation-related issues that resulted, there were probably fewer civilians impacted by that than would have been if the war had continued.

Of course it's easy to make the decision 70 years later when we have all the information.

- - - Updated - - -

Japan had an equal, if not worse human experimentation program than Germany's.

Hence why I said, "sometimes on an even greater scale."

[ketsui]

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.

After reading the comments here it seems everyone failed their world history classes. I wouldn't bother asking people who lack a study of understanding what they think. Basically two key points:
They hit us first
They refused to surrender after bomb 1, which was after we were told "we will never stop" by the Japanese

They started it, they refused to stop. Japanese don't surrender by nature if you know their honor code.

- - - Updated - - -

Also if people argue why it wasn't ok, they either A never been in a fight in their life or B failed world history. Anything else would agree it was americas only option since we were dragged into a world war we wanted to avoid

[Allenseiei]

The Germans didn't have the same medieval honor-based ideology as the Japanese, though. The Japanese were already employing kamikaze pilots, commiting suicide rather than being captured, and were ordered to fight to the death rather than retreat.

I honestly believe that the nuclear bombs were probably a mercy compared to the prolonged firebombing and urban warfare that would likely have happened across mainland Japan if the war hadn't been ended swiftly and decisively.

Even in terms of the radiation-related issues that resulted, there were probably fewer civilians impacted by that than would have been if the war had continued.

Of course it's easy to make the decision 70 years later when we have all the information.

- - - Updated - - -


Hence why I said, "sometimes on an even greater scale."

Medieval honor-based? So you mean people who zealously protect their country, have a meritocracy and strong jerarchy is medieval?

The kamikaze idea was a strategic one posible due to the patriotism of their men. The kamikaze planes started when japan lost all of its veteran air forces in the surprise attack in Midway. They had no good pilots left to compete with the american airforce. It was a desperation move really.
The real bushido orders were with the battleship Yamato and its escort fleets. The rest were normal strategic decisions, they didn't throw away their men like Russia did.

[Faenskap]

I don't see them getting a lot of shit for it. Even on this forum in similar threads I've seen it regarded as a necessary evil, and not even that evil because it stopped communism. Really..?

History is written by the victors, that's one thing, but what someone's country did in the war is a lot more important than the bigger picture, which is fair enough, because it's a world war. Everyone knows England was bombed during Blitzkrieg, but few know Bulgaria was bombed too. We know about the concentration camps, but we don't know that the British bombed a German ship carrying Soviet PoWs outside Norway, leading to 2000 men dying a horrible death.

If anything, I find that Japan isn't known for Nanking amongst most people. Nanking was absolutely horrible and gruesome, such as women being gangraped, having their brests cut off, and long, sharp objects inserted into their vaginas. If I had to choose, I'd go for having a bombed dropped on my head than what these women must have gone through. I also think the Japanese have a hard time accepting the atrocities they committed, both Nanking and the Korean comfort women. At least the Americans are aware of what they did.

What is really adorable though is that after Japan surrendered, the Americans took great interest in the Japanese scientists working on biological and chemical weapons. So while the high-ranking Germans were trialed and killed in Nuremberg, these Japanese who performed vivisection didn't face the same consequences.

The worst thing is that people never learn. Every war is so brutal, filled with unnecessary violence, torture and rape.

[Allenseiei]

After reading the comments here it seems everyone failed their world history classes. I wouldn't bother asking people who lack a study of understanding what they think. Basically two key points:
They hit us first
They refused to surrender after bomb 1, which was after we were told "we will never stop" by the Japanese

They started it, they refused to stop. Japanese don't surrender by nature if you know their honor code.

- - - Updated - - -

Also if people argue why it wasn't ok, they either A never been in a fight in their life or B failed world history. Anything else would agree it was americas only option since we were dragged into a world war we wanted to avoid

You wanted to avoid? Are you sure your country didn't want the excuse to enter the war? The biggest benefactor of the war is the US afterall. World history? from what point of view? After all world history is what the winners agree on what happened most of the time. World history also changes from country to country.

[Thunderball]

Because it's the most atrocious war crime in the history of humanity, obviously. I have no idea what you have to do to beat that at this point, I would be really suprised if people didnt give US shit about it. I'm actually surpised how can anyone view this as an acceptable action, or even a necessity.

[Shadowferal]

Because it's the most atrocious war crime in the history of humanity, obviously.

Your lack of any grasp of knowledge regarding human history is duly noted.

[Allybeboba]

Because it's the most atrocious war crime in the history of humanity, obviously. .

Oh my... you have got to be kidding us.

[Forogil]

Because it was an act of civilian genocide, and thus the US deserves to be given heaps of "shit" over it.

You are devaluing the word 'genocide' by using it for those bombings. If you want to protest against them use another word.

[shrunken]

Emotions are running high among the MMO-Champion thinktank, as most furiously type away responses and ignore the scent wafting from their unwashed balls and asscracks.

[Thunderball]

Your lack of any grasp of knowledge regarding human history is duly noted.

So I guess you can name an event that killed more people by a single unreasonable malicious action, in war or not.

[Powerogue]

I'm really not surprised that you are asking this question. Heck, you're even on ignore so I can't actually read your post but that really doesn't matter.

The USA is the only country to actually use nuclear weapons against another country and it's people. I'm not going to address the questions surrounding it, it is what it is. But I have no problem with taking some level of shit for it. We did it. We're responsible for it's results. Better to own up to it. Take your lumps. Learn from it.

At the end of the day at least witnessing the collateral damage has made people avoid using nuclear weapons ever since. For all we know without that, the Cold War would've been World War III. Hindsight is 20/20, we move on and hopefully learn from past actions.

[Recyclebin]

Because it's the most atrocious war crime in the history of humanity, obviously. I have no idea what you have to do to beat that at this point, I would be really suprised if people didnt give US shit about it. I'm actually surpised how can anyone view this as an acceptable action, or even a necessity.

MMO C attracts the strangest people.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm really not surprised that you are asking this question. Heck, you're even on ignore so I can't actually read your post but that really doesn't matter.

The USA is the only country to actually use nuclear weapons against another country and it's people. I'm not going to address the questions surrounding it, it is what it is. But I have no problem with taking some level of shit for it. We did it. We're responsible for it's results. Better to own up to it. Take your lumps. Learn from it.

You feel guilt about something you had no part in? So strange. I never made a decision to drop any bombs, and the only persons actions I have accountability for is my own. Also what "lumps"? In my 27 years of life this is the first time I have seen anyone object to these bombings. And whos taking these lumps? We punish children for the sins of the father now? Ohhhh libs. So legitimately scary. I can only imagine the world of horror we would live in if people like this were aloud to "punish us" for our sins. Shudder....regressives.

[Shadowferal]

So I guess you can name an event that killed more people by a single unreasonable malicious action, in war or not.

Holy shit, are you kidding me?
Maybe you should look up the Holocaust. (Or are you one of those that dream that it didn't happen)
Maybe you should look up "genocide" because there are plenty of times that happened.
Maybe you should look into the Crusades, because they make for fun reading. (The pogroms that led to wholesale massacres of the Jews I'm sure will enlighten you. And then there's the Albigensian Crusade initiated by the arrogant Innocent III that led to the Inquisition and the overall murder of over a million people)
My recent reading has me at "Lothar von Trotha" and the atrocities committed against the people in Namibia.

So many to choose from...and the stuff of nightmares.

You ignorance is astonishing.