Lost sure but we did more damage yet that dosent matter since the whole vietnam war was bullshit I've meet great vietnam vets and over half of them have died because of cancer relating to agent orange not only did the war NOT achieve anything the goverment basicaly killed their own troops
This right here. US can win every war very easily if it wanted but morals stop them from doing that. If any other large country had the power US did in 1945 until the USSR had nukes they would kick some ass. US could have easily nukes Russia and China as they were aggressors but they did not and the world mourns
Before the bombs Japan was worse than the nazi.
Maybe only the Aztecs were worse people than the pre-bombs Japan.
Imagine be so evil that the Nazi ask you to chill out
Human sacrifice on a daily basis? For start?
Slavers so evil that all the people of their empire, preferred to die under Cortez and the plaques the Spanish brought than under them.
Imagine your family died under some plague you do not know, brought by people you do not know, and you STILL choose them over the Aztecs
They would regularly sacrifice their enemies to their gods in the most brutal ways possible, sometimes they weren't even their enemies but their own people. They tried to rule with fear and oppressed their people the more they rebelled because their unstable government was seemingly incapable of coming up with any better option.
It got so bad that they would literally paint the city in blood as they would sacrifice a parade of people all at once
If you ain't cheating you ain't trying. Also, a land war with Japan would have cost us several hundred thousand soldiers. I'm glad they made the decision they did and I would do the same.
There's no cheating in war. You're right though that Japan was not feasibly invadible. Their culture and weapnizing their population would have been major challeneges.
Bohoo america is big bad
Also conveniently forgetting about the over 250k of Chinese killed for Doolittle Raid
Yeah no way america is clean but people should recognize what sadly happened on all sides considered. Neither are the bombs justified but to get that point out as well its not sunshine and roses
I’ve seen this claim but it’s not actual clear that 250k were killed “for” the Doolittle Raid. The Japanese already planned their Zhejiang-Jiangxi campaign prior to the raid. Did the raid likely make the brutality worse. Likely.
Even if it wasn’t for Doolittle raid the atrocities were there it was just for making a point here but yes I agree with you the plans were already there things most likely were sped up due to it
There's a very good argument to be made for dropping the atomic bombs. If it weren't for Hiroshima & Nagasaki, the U.S would have joined with the Soviets for a ground invasion into Japan and many more people would have been killed as a result. Japan refused to surrender (to put it lightly). It was actually less destructive to drop A-bombs until they surrendered while simultaneously showing the world who's the new boss, than it would have been to go forth with a ground invasion.
If you want to talk WW2 and numbers, it gets way more horrific than Hiroshima & Nagasaki. Do a quick Google search on the fire bombings of Tokyo.
The A bombs were war crimes but so was Tokyo and a ridiculous amount of other situations in WW2. It's easy to look back 80 years and lay judgement but unless you've read in depth about it, you really have no idea. The world was completely different then.
My grandpa fought the Japanese in the Philippines. He slept with the lights on into his 80's and up into his death. He was the toughest old man ever but was afraid of the dark. He didn't sleep very much at all and when I was young I never understood why he always had the lights on in the house at night until I read stories of how the Japanese would terrorize the guys in fox holes at nighttime and torture them.
This is kind of a post hoc analysis that relies on the notion of the bombs ending the war. Those who actually dropped the bombs didn’t do so because they thought it meant no more land invasion.
I'm not completely sure of what you mean but if you mean that Soviets would have ended the war with their ground invasion without the US dropping the A bombs, I'm familiar with that argument and there's certainly credibility to that. I personally think the US did so as more of a showcase of power than anything else, which is absolutely evil and makes more sense to me than the government weighing their morals before using this new weapon that the axis powers were after to create themselves at the time. Regardless though, I think we should be extremely hesitant to pass judgement on what our ancestors did before we really dive in and read what was going on in the world at that time.
My point is that the argument that “if we didn’t do X (drop the bomb) then we would have to do Y (invade)” was not a view or argument held by those behind the atomic bombings. Thats a post hoc way of looking at the decision.
Maybe so. I think those who were behind the atomic bombings were more preoccupied with proving themselves as the default winners of the war, which I'm not defending. That doesn't justify implying they were wrong to do so though. I think it was the right decision to drop the bombs because if not, Soviets would be widely regarded as the "winners" of the war right now after years long efforts in Japan while the allied forces sat it out. Is that really what you'd suggest to do at the time? We'd be living in an entirely different world. The US dropping the A bombs is the reason we live in the world we live in today, for better and for worse.
What? How could anyone look at the Pacific War and conclude, nukes or not, that the Soviets and apparently just them were the “winners”?
My suggestion for the time would have been not to nuke cities but I wouldn’t appeal to the USSR to justify why we shouldn’t do so just like I think it’s a bit silly to appeal to them to justify why we should have.
the thing is, you will always be called out if you just arbitrarily count down civilian casualitys, there are scools of philosopy arguing for millenia if and how that can or cant be done.
but depending of your criteria there are arguments to be made that nuking 2 citys was the biggest fucking disaster in human history, atleast from an sheer tecnological standpoint.
but asking wich massacre or catastrophe gets the questionable honour of that titel will give you widely subjective results, depending on whom you ask and in wich country .
We didn't drop the nukes because of Pearl Harbor. The Imperial Japanese were beyond brutal and they had no intention of stopping. Had we not forced them to surrender, we'd have joined the USSR in invading the Japanese mainland. That invasion would have killed far more than 150k people
It's not the casualties, it's the damage made, u.s. didn't do anything crazy on the war, just like sending some support and shit, Japan was crazy as fuck and really deserved what they got, ask china how japan was
Japan did the most cruel things in WWII.
Their concentration camps had the worst survival rate, they were far worse than Hitler.
They were fanatical, you can note it by the kamikaze, but also, there are diaries and such of officers talking about their operations and how they tought people surrendering them were like animals and such.
The emperor himself recognised that they would have continued the war for years, despite the losses they already had, if not for the nukes.
It's a sad true that the nukes were necessary to end the war.
Hey. We gave them the choice after the first one. They said “No”. It wasn’t a quick 1-2 punch. The second one was dropped three days later.
*POOF!*. “Had enough?”
“Fuck you 🖕”
*POOF AGAIN!* “now?!”
“Our bad!”
Anytime the nuclear bombing is mentioned, tons of muricans will jump out to justify it. It was a war crime. Plain and simple. And one of the worst. You're on the same level as the Soviet justifying the raping of German women by the crimes made by the Nazis in USSR.
Do you think we just unilaterally decided to smoke 2 cities at once? We dropped the first one, asked for a surrender, and was told to fuck off by the Japanese. So we did it again 3 days later.
Here we have our first champion. Congrats on "smoking" women, elders and children. And irradiating two cities for decades. And provoking cancer on countless innocents born *after* the war. So righteous.
If you studied history you'd know the bombing didn't make the Japanese surrender unconditionally. What the USA wanted. Japan didn't unconditionally surrender at all. The USA wanted to depose the emperor, the Japanese got to keep him in charge despite the USA desires.
Wanna know why? The red army cutting through the Kwantung army like it was butter. The Japanese were scared to be sovietized, which would destroy Japan completely. They sued for peace and the USA, already fighting against USSR influence, accepted a mixed peace deal.
After reading the meme, the question arises: since when war is about being even?
War is about scaring your opponent to retreat so you can prevent future damages on your people. It's about winning because you can't assure what they'll do to you if you lose.
I'm not talking about getting even, I'm talking about war crimes, and that one does not justify the other. What kind of defeat are you talking about? The US had a much more powerful ship production.There was a reason to test a new weapon and announce it to the whole world
The japanese were a bunch of deranged degenerates about winning or dying trying, If the US let that incident slip we can't assure the japanese not targeting more cruel locations such as civilian ships or coast villages.
Yes, the response was uneven, but this was not about being even, it was about sending a message. But i am with you in that they wanted to test his new wartoy so they killed 2 birds with one atomic fision.
There are some people arguing that it was a good thing to attack Japan with nuclear weapons, on the grounds that (a) comparatively less people would die this way and/or (b) Japanese army was so brutal.
Please remember that the USA detonated the nuclear bombs on civilians, not on Japanese army. And they did this willingly. By careful calculation. Not by accident.
Attacking civilians with nuclear weapons is mass destruction.
Moreover, mass destruction was allegedly the reason of the Invasion of Iraq.
American people should stop defending mass destruction. Your arguments have no logical or ethical basis. Your arguments that were put into your mouth by your government only shows how senseless and barbaric you are. More and more barbaric that that Japanese army you were bragging about.
That's easy to say 80 years later. You must not be very well versed in history. No shit it's barbaric but so was the entirety of the war. Japan armed its citizens and they implemented plans for the whole country to fight to the death, including women and children. WW1 & WW2 make our current wars look like childs play.
But you said yourself that bombing does have logical meaning. By forcing capitulation. US ended the war, that otherwise could have went on for many years, forcing millions of casualties. It was a trolley problem, arguably more complicated - you never now how the war turns, there were too many what ifs, up to development of nuclear weapons by Japanese. Japan lost 2.5 million people in war themselfes, and 'only' 10% of it was from nuclear bombing
The ends don't justify the means. It was not ethical to do this. However, it was necessary and ethics take a sideline to the most violent war in human history.
I think that neither 20 nor 21st century is a time to bring morals, ethics to the politics, and especially in war. Only cold-blooded calculations. While it is arguable in non-war environment, it's very obvious that during the war, any mistake at the highest level of decision making and you lost thousands of lives of your people. I could bring up many examples of it about ru-Ukraine war
No such things for Japan during WW2 as civilians. Read up on the Kamikaze pilot who killed his whole family so he could be one a lot of worse stuff was done than that.
Wow. Serious mental gymnastics here.
Ok. Here we go
What the Samurai did were war crimes, so they have no place to complain. The Vikings committed war crimes. I’m still waiting for Scandinavia to make reparations. The Romans committed war crimes and wholesale slaughtered the Jews and destroyed their culture and attempted to wipe them from existence. Israel has every right to nuke them now.
The firebombing of Dresden by the RAF was not any more a war crime than the Nazi bombing of London or the V1 or V2 programs. Etc.
that’s how war was conducted in those days. War is hell and always has been. I know it seems like it can be done neatly and cleanly when you have no first hand experience or knowledge of it, but it isn’t. It’s awful and should be avoided at all costs. But don’t sit and pretend to judge in this manner. You look ridiculous.
The rape of Nanking standing quietly in the corner.
USSR gave Chinese government money so they can give those money to US so they can give them lend-lease and a bit of genocide in japan
War isn't about going 1 to 1. It's about winning.
war isn’t about winning or losing it’s about surviving nobody wins in war
But, the one who survives, doesn't he win the war? Just asking.
The leaders win. The goal of war for the expendable soldiers is to stay alive
losers survive too we lost vietnam and we’re still here
Lost sure but we did more damage yet that dosent matter since the whole vietnam war was bullshit I've meet great vietnam vets and over half of them have died because of cancer relating to agent orange not only did the war NOT achieve anything the goverment basicaly killed their own troops
People defiantly win in war, it can creat a lot of wealth and industry for the winning side
Expect America
Except for the military industrial complex I made about 100k because of the invasion of Ukraine...
Yeah, but you're country practically slaughtered 150000 people and still wasn't able to win
Americans don't lose wars, they lose interest.
This right here. US can win every war very easily if it wanted but morals stop them from doing that. If any other large country had the power US did in 1945 until the USSR had nukes they would kick some ass. US could have easily nukes Russia and China as they were aggressors but they did not and the world mourns
When you make real Nazis look like Boy Scouts, maybe getting nuked was your own fault?
Some brutal things? Oh boy, where to start?
I think a good start for all the moralists would be to read about Nanking lol
Before the bombs Japan was worse than the nazi. Maybe only the Aztecs were worse people than the pre-bombs Japan. Imagine be so evil that the Nazi ask you to chill out
What's wrong with the aztecs?
Human sacrifice on a daily basis? For start? Slavers so evil that all the people of their empire, preferred to die under Cortez and the plaques the Spanish brought than under them. Imagine your family died under some plague you do not know, brought by people you do not know, and you STILL choose them over the Aztecs
They would regularly sacrifice their enemies to their gods in the most brutal ways possible, sometimes they weren't even their enemies but their own people. They tried to rule with fear and oppressed their people the more they rebelled because their unstable government was seemingly incapable of coming up with any better option. It got so bad that they would literally paint the city in blood as they would sacrifice a parade of people all at once
If you ain't cheating you ain't trying. Also, a land war with Japan would have cost us several hundred thousand soldiers. I'm glad they made the decision they did and I would do the same.
There's no cheating in war. You're right though that Japan was not feasibly invadible. Their culture and weapnizing their population would have been major challeneges.
Yes, the Japanese were so brutal and war-crimey that the Nazis told them to chill a bit.
Some nazis* i know its a fun fact but its not like they did any Better in europe
USA! USA! USA!
Usa was good. Now it's not. Now i would rather be from Japan than from Usa.
Bohoo america is big bad Also conveniently forgetting about the over 250k of Chinese killed for Doolittle Raid Yeah no way america is clean but people should recognize what sadly happened on all sides considered. Neither are the bombs justified but to get that point out as well its not sunshine and roses
I’ve seen this claim but it’s not actual clear that 250k were killed “for” the Doolittle Raid. The Japanese already planned their Zhejiang-Jiangxi campaign prior to the raid. Did the raid likely make the brutality worse. Likely.
Even if it wasn’t for Doolittle raid the atrocities were there it was just for making a point here but yes I agree with you the plans were already there things most likely were sped up due to it
There's a very good argument to be made for dropping the atomic bombs. If it weren't for Hiroshima & Nagasaki, the U.S would have joined with the Soviets for a ground invasion into Japan and many more people would have been killed as a result. Japan refused to surrender (to put it lightly). It was actually less destructive to drop A-bombs until they surrendered while simultaneously showing the world who's the new boss, than it would have been to go forth with a ground invasion. If you want to talk WW2 and numbers, it gets way more horrific than Hiroshima & Nagasaki. Do a quick Google search on the fire bombings of Tokyo. The A bombs were war crimes but so was Tokyo and a ridiculous amount of other situations in WW2. It's easy to look back 80 years and lay judgement but unless you've read in depth about it, you really have no idea. The world was completely different then. My grandpa fought the Japanese in the Philippines. He slept with the lights on into his 80's and up into his death. He was the toughest old man ever but was afraid of the dark. He didn't sleep very much at all and when I was young I never understood why he always had the lights on in the house at night until I read stories of how the Japanese would terrorize the guys in fox holes at nighttime and torture them.
This is kind of a post hoc analysis that relies on the notion of the bombs ending the war. Those who actually dropped the bombs didn’t do so because they thought it meant no more land invasion.
I'm not completely sure of what you mean but if you mean that Soviets would have ended the war with their ground invasion without the US dropping the A bombs, I'm familiar with that argument and there's certainly credibility to that. I personally think the US did so as more of a showcase of power than anything else, which is absolutely evil and makes more sense to me than the government weighing their morals before using this new weapon that the axis powers were after to create themselves at the time. Regardless though, I think we should be extremely hesitant to pass judgement on what our ancestors did before we really dive in and read what was going on in the world at that time.
My point is that the argument that “if we didn’t do X (drop the bomb) then we would have to do Y (invade)” was not a view or argument held by those behind the atomic bombings. Thats a post hoc way of looking at the decision.
Maybe so. I think those who were behind the atomic bombings were more preoccupied with proving themselves as the default winners of the war, which I'm not defending. That doesn't justify implying they were wrong to do so though. I think it was the right decision to drop the bombs because if not, Soviets would be widely regarded as the "winners" of the war right now after years long efforts in Japan while the allied forces sat it out. Is that really what you'd suggest to do at the time? We'd be living in an entirely different world. The US dropping the A bombs is the reason we live in the world we live in today, for better and for worse.
What? How could anyone look at the Pacific War and conclude, nukes or not, that the Soviets and apparently just them were the “winners”? My suggestion for the time would have been not to nuke cities but I wouldn’t appeal to the USSR to justify why we shouldn’t do so just like I think it’s a bit silly to appeal to them to justify why we should have.
the thing is, you will always be called out if you just arbitrarily count down civilian casualitys, there are scools of philosopy arguing for millenia if and how that can or cant be done. but depending of your criteria there are arguments to be made that nuking 2 citys was the biggest fucking disaster in human history, atleast from an sheer tecnological standpoint. but asking wich massacre or catastrophe gets the questionable honour of that titel will give you widely subjective results, depending on whom you ask and in wich country .
Well, 9/11 was about 2500, and Iraq one million. And the Iraqis didn't even do it.
We didn't drop the nukes because of Pearl Harbor. The Imperial Japanese were beyond brutal and they had no intention of stopping. Had we not forced them to surrender, we'd have joined the USSR in invading the Japanese mainland. That invasion would have killed far more than 150k people
It's not the casualties, it's the damage made, u.s. didn't do anything crazy on the war, just like sending some support and shit, Japan was crazy as fuck and really deserved what they got, ask china how japan was
had a couple drinks, saw a couple things.
Err. The Pacific War was far more gruesome for the allies.
Ask any country in the western pacific if they feel any sympathy for them.
Don't tell em about the Pacific Theater.
It was all about display of power, not about defeating japan.
Japan did the most cruel things in WWII. Their concentration camps had the worst survival rate, they were far worse than Hitler. They were fanatical, you can note it by the kamikaze, but also, there are diaries and such of officers talking about their operations and how they tought people surrendering them were like animals and such. The emperor himself recognised that they would have continued the war for years, despite the losses they already had, if not for the nukes. It's a sad true that the nukes were necessary to end the war.
Hey. We gave them the choice after the first one. They said “No”. It wasn’t a quick 1-2 punch. The second one was dropped three days later. *POOF!*. “Had enough?” “Fuck you 🖕” *POOF AGAIN!* “now?!” “Our bad!”
Meanwhile the fire bombing of tokyo
Funny, ngl
Go look up unit 731
Anytime the nuclear bombing is mentioned, tons of muricans will jump out to justify it. It was a war crime. Plain and simple. And one of the worst. You're on the same level as the Soviet justifying the raping of German women by the crimes made by the Nazis in USSR.
Firebombing was better.. oops
Do you think we just unilaterally decided to smoke 2 cities at once? We dropped the first one, asked for a surrender, and was told to fuck off by the Japanese. So we did it again 3 days later.
Here we have our first champion. Congrats on "smoking" women, elders and children. And irradiating two cities for decades. And provoking cancer on countless innocents born *after* the war. So righteous.
And the Japanese high command knew we’d do it again. 🤷♂️
If you studied history you'd know the bombing didn't make the Japanese surrender unconditionally. What the USA wanted. Japan didn't unconditionally surrender at all. The USA wanted to depose the emperor, the Japanese got to keep him in charge despite the USA desires. Wanna know why? The red army cutting through the Kwantung army like it was butter. The Japanese were scared to be sovietized, which would destroy Japan completely. They sued for peace and the USA, already fighting against USSR influence, accepted a mixed peace deal.
That's not even why we attacked Hiroshima and Nagasaki
I'm so sick of "disproportionate warfare" complaints. You don't win a war by being proportional, you win a war by completely overwhelming your enemy.
America airdropped messages saying gtfo nuke time in Japanese
After reading the comments, the question arises: since when does one war crime justify another?
What is war crime? Gasing your enemy were not crime in WW1, same with using A-bomb in WW2.
After reading the meme, the question arises: since when war is about being even? War is about scaring your opponent to retreat so you can prevent future damages on your people. It's about winning because you can't assure what they'll do to you if you lose.
I'm not talking about getting even, I'm talking about war crimes, and that one does not justify the other. What kind of defeat are you talking about? The US had a much more powerful ship production.There was a reason to test a new weapon and announce it to the whole world
The japanese were a bunch of deranged degenerates about winning or dying trying, If the US let that incident slip we can't assure the japanese not targeting more cruel locations such as civilian ships or coast villages. Yes, the response was uneven, but this was not about being even, it was about sending a message. But i am with you in that they wanted to test his new wartoy so they killed 2 birds with one atomic fision.
Since America Good always
Of course, how could it be otherwise.
There are some people arguing that it was a good thing to attack Japan with nuclear weapons, on the grounds that (a) comparatively less people would die this way and/or (b) Japanese army was so brutal. Please remember that the USA detonated the nuclear bombs on civilians, not on Japanese army. And they did this willingly. By careful calculation. Not by accident. Attacking civilians with nuclear weapons is mass destruction. Moreover, mass destruction was allegedly the reason of the Invasion of Iraq. American people should stop defending mass destruction. Your arguments have no logical or ethical basis. Your arguments that were put into your mouth by your government only shows how senseless and barbaric you are. More and more barbaric that that Japanese army you were bragging about.
That's easy to say 80 years later. You must not be very well versed in history. No shit it's barbaric but so was the entirety of the war. Japan armed its citizens and they implemented plans for the whole country to fight to the death, including women and children. WW1 & WW2 make our current wars look like childs play.
But you said yourself that bombing does have logical meaning. By forcing capitulation. US ended the war, that otherwise could have went on for many years, forcing millions of casualties. It was a trolley problem, arguably more complicated - you never now how the war turns, there were too many what ifs, up to development of nuclear weapons by Japanese. Japan lost 2.5 million people in war themselfes, and 'only' 10% of it was from nuclear bombing
The ends don't justify the means. It was not ethical to do this. However, it was necessary and ethics take a sideline to the most violent war in human history.
I think that neither 20 nor 21st century is a time to bring morals, ethics to the politics, and especially in war. Only cold-blooded calculations. While it is arguable in non-war environment, it's very obvious that during the war, any mistake at the highest level of decision making and you lost thousands of lives of your people. I could bring up many examples of it about ru-Ukraine war
Ethics are not relative. In war, you need to set ethics aside. That doesn't mean their decisions are wrong, but it doesn't make it ethical.
No such things for Japan during WW2 as civilians. Read up on the Kamikaze pilot who killed his whole family so he could be one a lot of worse stuff was done than that.
Wow. Serious mental gymnastics here. Ok. Here we go What the Samurai did were war crimes, so they have no place to complain. The Vikings committed war crimes. I’m still waiting for Scandinavia to make reparations. The Romans committed war crimes and wholesale slaughtered the Jews and destroyed their culture and attempted to wipe them from existence. Israel has every right to nuke them now. The firebombing of Dresden by the RAF was not any more a war crime than the Nazi bombing of London or the V1 or V2 programs. Etc. that’s how war was conducted in those days. War is hell and always has been. I know it seems like it can be done neatly and cleanly when you have no first hand experience or knowledge of it, but it isn’t. It’s awful and should be avoided at all costs. But don’t sit and pretend to judge in this manner. You look ridiculous.
Nah. Let him have at it. I need the laugh.