75th Anniversary

[Markle]

"
Seventy-Аive Years Ago on August, 6 We Killed a Hundred Thousand People"
LEARN TO SPELL!
WHO IS WE?

HIROSHIMA WAS A BLAST!
SHOWED THEM THAT USA IS #1 YOU BUTTERCUP!

The Japanese didn't listen so we had to do it again in Nagasaki.

Proud to be an American.

True.

A contributing factor was that communications were nothing close to what we have today. Many of Japan's leadership did not believe the bombing at Hiroshima was not as bad as they were being told.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

"
Seventy-Аive Years Ago on August, 6 We Killed a Hundred Thousand People"
LEARN TO SPELL!
WHO IS WE?

HIROSHIMA WAS A BLAST!
SHOWED THEM THAT USA IS #1 YOU BUTTERCUP!

The Japanese didn't listen so we had to do it again in Nagasaki.

Proud to be an American.

True.

A contributing factor was that communications were nothing close to what we have today. Many of Japan's leadership did not believe the bombing at Hiroshima was not as bad as they were being told.

I am seriously glad that it was us that had that bomb and used it.

 

[Unkotare]

archive.ph

 

[Markle]

That tired old story is banal speculation meant to avoid a difficult moral issue.

Not at all

an allied invasion of Japan would have resulted in massive loss of life

That was not the only other option.

Other than unconditional surrender, what other option?

 

[westwall]

The atomic bomb saved a million lives, including both American and Japanese

That tired old story is banal speculation meant to avoid a difficult moral issue.

No, it is factual and supported by the experience on Saipan.

Look up pole bayonet. They were to be given to the civilians so they could tie them to poles and charge the US troops coming ashore.

That is a fact. The idea was to get under our firepower before to many got killed. It was madness. A madness that was only halted after Hirohito survived a coup attempt by those who wanted to fight to the end.

Starving, demoralized women, children, and the elderly were not going to charge US Marines with sticks. You are swallowing 75 year old propaganda that was intended at the time to stir up civilian support, which had by then run just about out.

Yeah, they were. The pole bayonets were built dude. It is you who are sucking down propaganda.

Feel free to refute the training sheets that were found during the occupation that described the strategy.

Feel free to refute the actual bayonets themselves that have been traded by collectors since the end of the war.

Provide evidence, and not opinion.

 

[westwall]

The atomic bomb saved a million lives, including both American and Japanese

That tired old story is banal speculation meant to avoid a difficult moral issue.

There is no moral issue. Japan started a war and lost. End of story.

If you don't think that targeting and incinerating hundreds of thousands of civilians is a moral issue, you have a very serious moral issue.

It saved more than it cost. Besides the Japanese are in no position to talk about morals after the atrocities they committed against the asian nations they conquered.

 

[Unkotare]

... The pole bayonets were built ....

Of course they were. Government reps even organized neighborhood 'practice' sessions. All of which was an attempt to stir up support among a population that had long since grown tired of the war. Clear-thinking, intelligent people (you know, people not like you) realized what was really going on.

 

[Unkotare]

...Besides the Japanese are in no position to talk about morals after the atrocities they committed against the asian nations they conquered.

Your childishly obvious fallacy aside, it is not about Japan talking, it is about Americans considering a very consequential moral issue. "But Mommy, that other boy did something bad!" has nothing to do with the question of morality in the decision that truman made on behalf of America.

And, no matter how many times you attempt to appeal to that emotion, it has never been suggested that America used the atom bomb in an act of revenge on behalf of other nations. It was an American decision, and it is irresponsible to close our eyes and refuse to even consider it because questioning a long-held narrative is uncomfortable.

 

[Mac-7]

This is where your cultural ignorance comes into play.

In case you havent noticed, you ran out of arguements several posts back and have nothing now except personal insults

 

[Mac-7]

If you don't think that targeting and incinerating hundreds of thousands of civilians is a moral issue, you have a very serious moral issue.

Every 5 years or so the usual revisionist historians rant about the end of WWII and how mean we were to the japanese

but rational people at the time realized how costly an invasion of the japanese mainland would be

the experiences on Siapan and the kamakaze attacks on the US fleet were evidence of how far japanese were willing to go

the atomic bomb was our answer to that threat

 

[Mac-7]

Other than unconditional surrender, what other option?

I asked the same question but got no answer

 

[Flash]

The dumbass Japs learned the hard way that you shouldn't fuck with the USA, didn't they?

What in the hell were those morons thinking? Play stupid games and get stupid prizes.

The stupid Japs really cooked their goose at Okinawa. They thought it would be cool to fight to the last man and show the Americans that they would suffer heavy losses if they invaded. What could possibly go wrong? However, it didn't quite go as planned, did it? The lesson that the Americans learned was it would be better to just nuke the bastards.

 

[Indeependent]

If every war resulted in a nuclear response, wars would end yesterday.

Along with our civilization. But hey... No more war, then!

There are not nearly enough nukes to destroy civilization.

 

[Mindful]

The atomic bomb saved a million lives, including both American and Japanese

That tired old story is banal speculation meant to avoid a difficult moral issue.

There is no moral issue. Japan started a war and lost. End of story.

If you don't think that targeting and incinerating hundreds of thousands of civilians is a moral issue, you have a very serious moral issue.

It saved more than it cost. Besides the Japanese are in no position to talk about morals after the atrocities they committed against the asian nations they conquered.

I’ve been reading about what they did to the Americans. In the Philippines.

 

[John T. Ford]

"Leftist"?

Yes

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The atomic bomb saved a million lives, including both American and Japanese

That tired old story is banal speculation meant to avoid a difficult moral issue.

There is no moral issue. Japan started a war and lost. End of story.

If you don't think that targeting and incinerating hundreds of thousands of civilians is a moral issue, you have a very serious moral issue.

And yet you totally IGNORE ll the times Japan did exactly that.

 

[Unkotare]

If you don't think that targeting and incinerating hundreds of thousands of civilians is a moral issue, you have a very serious moral issue.

Every 5 years or so the usual revisionist historians rant about ...

There is nothing "revisionist" about studying history and considering important questions that might make the weak-minded uncomfortable. You sound a lot like the global warming fanatics who are thrown into seizures by the very notion of considering the veracity of the issue. They scream "settled science!" the same way you scream "revisionist history!" whenever the pet topic or comfortable narrative is even glanced at. Real historians don't stop studying history just because you have found something you are comfortable with that you want to believe absolves you from ever thinking about it again.

 

[Unkotare]

...

the experiences on Siapan and the kamakaze attacks on the US fleet were evidence of ...

You lack the equipment under your hair to understand what those experiences really indicated.

 

[Unkotare]

"Leftist"?

Yes

No

 

[Mac-7]

If you don't think that targeting and incinerating hundreds of thousands of civilians is a moral issue, you have a very serious moral issue.

Every 5 years or so the usual revisionist historians rant about ...

There is nothing "revisionist" about studying history and considering important questions that might make the weak-minded uncomfortable. You sound a lot like the global warming fanatics who are thrown into seizures by the very notion of considering the veracity of the issue. They scream "settled science!" the same way you scream "revisionist history!" whenever the pet topic or comfortable narrative is even glanced at. Real historians don't stop studying history just because you have found something you are comfortable with that you want to believe absolves you from ever thinking about it again.

It seems that only people who already hate America have a problem with using the atomic bomb on japan

they often match Hiroshima with a belief that America started the Cold War and the soviets were innocent victims of American meanness