Why did americans drop the bomb on nagasaki when the japs surrendered after the first one...

[citation needed]

kek even in an anime I had to watch in jap class in high school said that the Jap government were fucking psychos that wouldn't surrender despite the citizens begging them to

it was either drop the nukes or prepare for a full scale land invasion of japan along side an air campaign that alone would have killed at least the same number of people as the nukes themselves. the fire bombing of tokyo killed nearly as many as the two nukes, the allies were beginning to shift every single strategic bomber from all over fronts to begin bombing japan. the actual land invasion would have a total slaughter on both sides too. the situation some how actually makes dropping the two bombs arguably the best option.

Its there, look it up

>until 2 weeks later they surrendered.
No the emperor broadcasted a declaration the 15 of August accepting the terms of the Potsdam declaration, allied military occupation began a few days later and the capitulation was formerly signed early september.

Unrestrained nationalism is a hell of a drug

>even in an anime I had to watch in jap class in high school said that the Jap government were fucking psychos
What Anime did you watch? In my experience, Anime and Manga whitewash the hell out of WWII. At worst they'll say "going to war was a mistake", without recognizing any of the things the Japanese did.

Attached: Japanese prisoners of war were treated fine, they were just picky eaters.jpg (725x1077, 366K)

What's there is thisWhat do you have to say against it?
Nothing of course, because you're a stupid moron.

dude we were just about to surrender

Attached: japs.jpg (1522x1150, 217K)

foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/30/the-bomb-didnt-beat-japan-stalin-did/

apjjf.org/-Tsuyoshi-Hasegawa/2501/article.pdf

I'm not saying you're wrong, its still horrible either way, and it probably did help in contributing in Japans surrender but I think they still would of when Russia declared war on them just like with the Germans, we could of all sat back and Russia would probably of still won, they had endless tanks and troops.

With that said as I said, the Nukes were still an experiment. The US built facilities on the outskirts of Hiroshima after the War to study the effects on civilians, basically treating them like guinea pigs. Just saying, if Germany would of used a nuke the entire country would of been hanged.

>japan surrendered before the 2nd bomb was dropped

>bombs dropped 6th and 8th of august
>japanese surrendered 15th

hmm

>americans lowkey admitting they are murderous war criminals

it's hilarious

hey bucko

everyone is a war criminal, no nation has a clean record and everyone knows this, just some have dirtier records than the others

>History is real

Yes I kkow, this is not what I'm debating, what I'm debating is the date of capitulation between the two nukes which is bullshit.
Also the thesis that 'nukes had absolutely no impact in capitulation, it was all glorious Stalin and manchuria' is probably about equally as stupidly revisionist as 'USSR declaration of war didn't matter it was all nukes'.

imagine, there are people in this thread right now who fail to understand or accept this

Yes bravo that's my point
If you weren't busy trying to outmeme each other with shitty barely decipherable greentext, maybe you'd like to tell us what your point exactly is.
Or shut the fuck up because you have nothing of value to actually say, that works too.

Attached: asianmasculinity.jpg (460x345, 44K)

what is your point? that japan surrendered before the 2nd bomb was dropped? even though they factually didnt? are you retarded

>whataboutism

nope western nations are disproportionately bloodied hands.

They did not nuke them again after they did surrender, but they did bomb Tokyo after knowing they would surrender.

lmao sure buddy

Surrendering to your enemy was one of the most dishonorable things you could do in Imperial Japan. Some people would rather see their glorious Japan go up in flames rather than have the country collectively kneel before someone an "inferior" country.

Are you completely illiterate you fucking mongoloid? My point is precisely the opposite for fuck's sake, shut the fuck up if you're not able to fucking read.

Not really nationalism..

The military coup forcibly held the nation's government hostage. If anything they were a mockery of nationalism as a facade

i think youre the one who is illiterate

>From our perspective, Hiroshima seems singular, extraordinary. But if you put yourself in the shoes of Japan’s leaders in the three weeks leading up to the attack on Hiroshima, the picture is considerably different. If you were one of the key members of Japan’s government in late July and early August, your experience of city bombing would have been something like this: On the morning of July 17, you would have been greeted by reports that during the night four cities had been attacked: Oita, Hiratsuka, Numazu, and Kuwana. Of these, Oita and Hiratsuka were more than 50 percent destroyed. Kuwana was more than 75 percent destroyed and Numazu was hit even more severely, with something like 90 percent of the city burned to the ground.

Try reading the links I posted. They go into this.

Honestly? If it triggers /pol/ I support it tb h

I think you should go fuck yourself and learn to read you dumb fucking nigger

Triggering /pol/ is even easier than triggering a SJW.

Reminder that if you kill them, they win

t. the guy who thinks japan surrendered before the 2nd bomb was dropped

They didn’t surrender til after the second nuke. And even then there were hardliners who tried a coup bc they refused to surrender. Christ you dumb got faggots really need to drink bleach

You dumb ass faggots have no idea of the concept of war. The nukes prevented more slaughter and war crimes in the long run. Especially with Russia developing their own nuke. It was inevitable. Kill yourselves you ignorant pissants.

I'm sure :)

Attached: 1503280984059.jpg (720x727, 66K)

why are americans so bloodthirsty? have they no morals?

based retards arguing that the nukes were unnecessary
jannies please drop the third nuke on this thread

Of course not. They're protestant capitalists. They're pure filth.

>would of
>could of
>probably of
Stop this. It makes you sound like a moron. The word is HAVE.

Don't limey yurocuck. Why could you not just not surrender to the Germans instead of holding unto your pride during the Great War?

>muh % of destruction were all that mattered
What this short sighted analysis forgets every time is that for each successful previous bombardment, thousands of B-29 and other long range bombers were used, up to 2000 at a time
When contact was lost with Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it was thought to be either an accident or a very small local bombardment that had cut communications
Because nobody had even spotted the three fucking planes that destroyed a city more successfully than 2000 could.
The scale of city destruction wasn't a consideration, the fact that it would now occur regularly without the possibility of any kind of warning was. And it's pretty clear if you take a look at the minutes of the meetings in the days that followed these two bombardments.

if you think that the americans are blood thirsty enough that it warrants actual discussion then youre painfully unaware of life outside of america or the history of mankind. the US has done some shit but the american stomach for war and death is far far weaker than most other nations on earth other than hyper liberal european countries

Call of Duty games don't give you an accurate depiction of history, user. Try studying military history.

You really are a dumb fucking mongoloid and you should neck yourself.

You literally have no concept of history aside from you wiki links you cuck. Open a fucking book.

yeh and military history clearly states it was either the two nukes or a land invasion, which would have been far more bloody than the nukes.

I keep forgetting how Yurocucks cannot win any modern war without American might. What weak little baby dicks.

Attached: 1513232968653.gif (455x297, 3.78M)

That's funny, none of the academic research I've read suggests that. Maybe all of academia is wrong and you're right.

Your academic professor is a retard.

1) give the japs a conditional surrender (lol)
2) blockade and starve the japanese out
3) bomb fuck out of japanese
4) land invasion with air campaign
5) drop the nukes

2 3 4 all produce at least the same amount of casualties as the invasion of japan, a fanatical island of 100 million people crammed onto an island that small is going to be a slog with civilians caught in the crossfire. the reason why the nukes are actually the better option is because of the massive shock value that carry. the japanese war cabinet werent infavor of an unconditional surrender until the nukes were dropped and even then there were elements who didnt want to surrender at all.

2 3 4 all produce at least the same amount of casualties as the nuclear bombs**

my professor has a breadth of knowledge

Attached: research.png (790x156, 15K)

Not him, but [citation needed]. The debate in academia about the exact chronology and causes for Japan's surrender does exist and is still ongoing. There were plans in place for an invasion of Japan by the US, and there were plans in place from the Japanese high command for a long in-depth defense of mainland Japan. The capitulation is the result of the amazing diplomatic timing that Truman and Stalin orchestrated, ith both nukes being dropped at the same time as the USSR finally declared war on Japan. It was not a coincidence, it had been planned since Yalta from the American side.

Its almost like America bullied every other country except China into submission so they can't arm themselves

>We had to vaporize hundreds of thousands of women and children to end the way slightly sooner, yay terrorism
>OMG YOU CAN'T JUST FLY PLANES INTO OUR TOWERS COME FIGHT MY TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF MILITARY EQUIPMENT LIKE A MAN YOU PUSSY TERRORISTS REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Attached: 1557102525974.png (1080x1020, 475K)

Not American casualties though. This is war, nobody cares how many enemies you fucking kill but everyone cares about how many of your soldiers die, and it is perfectly justified be abuse fuck cultural relativism. I can't even believe that I have to explain this shit out loud.

Reminder that America can do no right from the Eurorat point of view, so there is no point in trying. The only way to silence the incessant din of European whining is total Eurorat extermination.

Why is your faggot ass assuming everyone on this subreddit is American?

The Allies had no plan in letting the Soviets do all the work and then negotiate a partition plan where there would be a communist half and American half of Japan.

Next, I'm gonna hear faggots say Japan did not purposely time the negotiation delay to surprise attack Pearl Harbor. It was America that let it happen to go to war so we can save the Yurocucks, and Commies over the pond. God damn, I'm glad I'm not a failed history buff.

Just like America won the Vietnam war, right? Or the Gulf Wars

Go away pajeet nobody cares

Frontier peoples are always bloodthirsty. The real horror of the cold war is how similar Russia and the US view bloodshed, as an everyday part of Life. The jappos mythologised death into their weird murder-suicide cult bullshit and the Germans mechanized murder because the german people can't help but be proficient while the Russians have haven't had a period of peace without a murder backed authoritarian putting their boot heel down on their throat and at no point in American history have the Americans not been at war with somebody. The natives, the french, the English, the natives, the English, the natives, the Spanish, the Mexicans, the germans, the germans, the Russians, the gooks, the camel niggers and God only knows who next. The chinks?

I blame congress and Hollywood cucks. We pulled out because funding was cut.

whats your point? 2 and 3 have low american causalities, high japanese. 4 is high american high japanese, 5 is low/relativity very low japanese casualities.

the americans were planning for a full scale strategic air campaign with the entire might of the allied air forces, thousands upon thousands of heavy bombers flattening japan as the infantry forces invaded. this would have been a slaughter for everyone involved, far more civilian deaths than the two bombs combined, and then you have the combatant deaths.

These are the same morons who cry that some Japanese-Americans in California had to live in protective custody for a couple of years during the war.

>the japs surrendered after the first one
Read a book.

I did that's why I'm 100% correct about it.

I keep forgetting how the British, Spaniard and French Empires had nothing better to do but sail for spices.

Of course, it's always somebody else's fault. You guys are worse than soviets when it comes to deny the truth

Difference is
>The atomic bombs killed fewer people than carpet bombing, and brought a quick end to the war where an expected millions were to die, the atomic bomb worked, the Japanese surrendered, and the war ended
>Kelly C saw a surrender and torched millions anyway

What a dumb fucking equivalency.
the point of nuking Japan was to shorten a war.
The point of 911 was nothing. killing random people for no reason beyond bitterness and 'look mommy I killed civilians, I am a soldier too now'

t SEETHING libcuck

they would have, had it been unrestrained total war like ww2.

Yes and what's your point with that? It worked and no additional American casualties were needed. So seems like a good plan to me.

All America has to do to destroy Europe is to literally just exist and be successful. Out of some bizarre inferiority complex, Europeans will purposely handicap themselves by always doing the exact opposite of America, just because. As long as we simply have our 1st and 2nd Amendment, Europe will literally outlaw thoughts just to "stick it to America"
>na na na boo boo, we don't have free speech or gun rights. Take that, America!
Its actually sad at this point. If America were to outlaw female genital mutilation, then Europe would legalize it. Oh wait, that literally happened lol

Liberals would not have that. Thanks to the magic of televised propaganda.

> longest life span in the world
> lowest crime rate in the world
> world class food
> world class transport network
> world class electronics
> world class education
> world class whiskey and sake
> world class robotics
> world class automobiles
> world class motorcycles
> word class gaming entertainment
> world class night life
> world class women
> world class wives
> world class shopping
> world class internet network
> third largest economy in the world
> already selling 8k TVs
> everything made in Japan
> invented crypto currency
> no illegal immigrants
> legal sexual services
> zero sjw problems
> free to own firearms
> no mass shootings
> legally own Yea Forums

Have you bowed down to the rising sun today?

Attached: tsuuuu.webm (640x360, 2.9M)

Why the fuck did they let the Soviets have any power? For a small time the US had the upper hand with their nuke tech. They should've declared war on the USSR, nuked them if they refused surrender and shot communism's dick off from the get go.

japan would have fought to the death if not for the nukes. situation was completely different, hard to invade a country which is quite rugged

im glad we agree then!!!!!

>free to own firearms
No

>ameritards
>would of

Every fucking time.

How did the US lose the gulf wars?

>You

Nobody here had anything to do with it bro

Americans have no grasp at military intelligence at all. Their only strategy is "just send more people / just wait more time". All attrition, and when attrition fails then it's delusion and denial.
You're just proving my point. Delusional kids.

Of course, because Europe has a history of COLONIZING. Any way to make themselves look better than North American cotton farming slave owners.

America lives RENT FREE in YUROKEKS HEADS

>why didn't Truman start what would have been the bloodiest conflict in history right after finishing the bloodiest conflict in history
gee I really don't know

t. SEETHING child

there was no real "basis" to do that other than it was preemptive and based on speculation (correct speculation but a speculation non the less), that wouldnt fly with the american public who just got out of a heavy and costly war, along with europe which was already a wasteland and would become a new front line in the war, all of those countries also had essentially no armies, so america would have to bear the full force of the red army.

Nobody on this fucking board was alive then.

>imagine being so fucking stupid
Pseudo intellectualism meets simplisitic nationalism...
You fucking morons I swear.

Same way the lose the Vietnam war. They sent a fuckton of soldiers, gave them no clear goals, tried to make the conflict into another childish "good vs. evil" war and then left the countries in even worse state that those were in (quite the feat, I have to give you guys that) while burning out and abandon their own soldiers. Disgusting.

We may never know.

Attached: Allied_army_positions_on_10_May_1945.png (1200x759, 588K)

If only governments and international tribunals and organizations saw it this way. Instead America and Israel are allowed to do whatever they want and be called heroes for it. So Heroic how they nuked all those women and children for the greater good.

What a brilliant analysis, you should write a thesis with that.

>america lost the gulf war
vietnam i agree with, but gulf? the entire purpose of the gulf war was to get iraq out of kuwait, a goal they massively succeed at and iraq never entered kuwait again. the only real debate is if they should have kept on rolling and got rid of saddam in 1991 rather than 2003. the gulf war was a stomp fest that was hugely successful, have you never read a history book?

it was either nuke those cities or a continue to bomb it with thousands of aircraft and send in the ground troops for a slog, are you dumb?

Great counterpoint you got there. It's impossible to talk with an american, I swear.

The firebombing of Tokyo was actually worse then both nuclear bombs!

Attached: DDgenevaconventionwarcrimes.jpg (612x546, 69K)

Here's a link that circulated around my colleagues. I posted this earlier. Cheers

apjjf.org/-Tsuyoshi-Hasegawa/2501/article.pdf

They literally get their history from Disney and Comedy Central. Don't waste your time.

All these war related bait threads are surprisingly comfy

And I posted this in response earlier Cheers.

And how many of those "blood thirsty countries" have invaded even half the nations America did this last half century? Americans are so ready to deflect to the past but are ready to ignore how their nation is currently playing world police for petrodollar, oligarchs and Israel. God I hate bootlicks.

>be Imperial Japan
>unit 731
>rape of nanking
>korean sex slaves
>tried to take over the entire continent of Asia
>killed millions

>America drops a bomb on you and kills a few hundred thousand people

>"AMERICA YOU'RE EVIL!!! HOW COULD YOU DO THIS!!! :("

The Japanese were just as bad as the Nazis.

Attached: 1557021526184.jpg (300x300, 17K)

I'll take two nukes over Japan over the Red Invasion.

They won it like England won the Falklands War. A total waste of resources, lives and money just to distract the masses, justify military spending and pass stupid laws.

>it's impossible to present my barely literate point completely devoid of nuance and substance I swear
And I'm French by the way. Still I don't believe a paragraph long caricature of a decade long conflict is in any way shape or form, accurate.

t. seething leftist

Remember when the French colonies got their shit pushed in by the Koreans?

America's bombing of Japan (more in the case of Tokyo than the nukes) was criminal, cruel and disproportionate. Now, you're right, Japan was actually way worse than the nazis.

That's not what op is saying at all, he's not even defending Japan, learn to read

For all the SPICE the British, French, and Spanish sailed the 7 seas for you dumb yuromongrel?

>would of
Read a history book, brainlet

There is no cruelty in indiscriminate bombings, the scale is way too large for this word to have any meaning. This is total war, not maniacs jacking off to burning jap civilians.

Do you want me to write a longer, more nuanced reply. I would, I'd love to. But let's be honest in here, most replies to it would be "tl:dr", ironic shitposts or autistic catchphrases. If you're interested in talking about it, I'm more than open to it.

>he doesnt think the falklands war was justified for the british

are you some cuckold ultra liberal pacifist? a military dictatorship took territory from another nation just to bulster their own military junta, sending off thousands of poorly equipped and poorly trained teenagers to fight a world class fighting force who wasn't going to stand for their shit.

Attached: Falklands-Media-Covers[1].jpg (625x401, 126K)

i didn’t personally drop the atomic bomb on hiroshima or nagasaki

>ree leave us alone america
>reee help us america
Lol

Libtards cannot understand the concept of total war in the modern post-industrialized world after WW2. The war crimes committed by other nations during the Great War from NON-Americans was greater than any of the collateral damage during WW2.

i would have

Any sane human being would have to.

reminder that if the US hadn't dropped the bombs on japan we wouldn't have Yea Forums

FUCK!

Attached: 1430192266639.gif (265x200, 1.96M)

Where are you supposed to discuss this stuff? /his/?

Not particularly, if you have a good point to make about it, do it, if that's just a longer version of what you already posted, meh. But nobody is stopping you from writing a good post and to answer truthfully to retarded memesters while telling them to go fuck themselves if you indeed believe in your point. That's what I do. But never expect good structured posts in response to your shitty caricatures. You won't have many in response to your serious posts either, but the retards will always shut the fuck up or just sperg out like obvious morons eventually.

>dropping nukes
>bloody
Truman should've been ruthless to the commies and covered their land in a perpetual nuclear winter.

>implying japanese bombing policy was not precisely driven by racism

at japs had honor to target military bases

If Japan had surrended after the first, would the world have had the same fear around the damage a nuclear war would have had?

How many lives did the 2nd bomb save by cautioning the US and the USSR to not go at it properly?

>The war crimes committed by other nations during the Great War from NON-Americans was greater than any of the collateral damage during WW2.
[citation needed]
It's also one of the most retarded things I've ever read because the civilian losses during the Great War were almost negligible compared to WW2.

Nigger, the Ethnic cleansing in the East says otherwise.

Attached: Major_Kenji_Hatanaka.jpg (326x450, 135K)

American education. When you destabilize millions of peoples nations for petro dollar and think it wasn't justified and a viable tactic to just kill as many americans as possible. I would do the same if some welfare queen bootlicking jarrheeads destroyed my nation for George Bush too. I imagine another 9/11 might have made pig headed american consider not destroying entire nations for muh petro dollar. I think it's pretty legit tactic. the 9/11 terrorists thought they were justified, just like how Americans feel justified in killing hundreds of thousands of women and children to "end the war sooner" That might have been the exact same logic the 9/11 terrorists used. >If you don't accept our peace demands that's another hundred thousand people being vaporized.
LIBERATORS

The basis would've been the USSR gets punished for allying with Germany in the first place... Could've denied them any territory and made Stalin so butt hurt he lashed out.

Would you have preferred sustained bombing?

>racism
Yeah, really should be careful about that when fighting a war, it would be racist to lose less people than the country you're trying to defeat....
How do you remember how to breathe without anyone telling you to do so?

What would happen if a terrorist set off a nuke in a major city, would it start a nuclear war?

America lost those wars because of the "hearts and minds" bullshit where they pretended they were there to help when there were there to fight.

Yeah please tell us more about the honorable Japanese and their clean war lmao
I swear to god, Japanese army specifically targeted civilians every time they had the opportunity to do so, everywhere in the Pacific, in British colonies and in China
Fucking moron

>a military dictatorship took territory from another nation
More like a military dictatorship was claiming its legitimate sovereignty on occupied territory. Fuck the english.

Libtards, pure, and simple.

don't worry, we won't be the europe as you know it in 50 years

Who cares, the only ones who died were some gooks lol.

Attached: 1537967875047.png (645x773, 21K)

Please tell us more about that and provide numbers.

>civilian cities

watch as the amerimurderer tries to defend his war crimes

Same as americans. There's no difference

>Some people would rather see their glorious Japan go up in flames rather than have the country collectively kneel before someone an "inferior" country
everyone should be like this

America is an schizoid nation. They want to wage war and kill people while, at the same time, they want to be seen as the peacekeepers and saviours of the world. What a pathetic nation of neurotic halfwits.

This

Attached: 1555716107318.webm (1024x576, 2.79M)

mentalfloss.com/article/61938/wwi-centennial-ethnic-violence-around-world
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_cleansing_campaigns
And on a personal level
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_genocide

>when you
Differneceu s, the average American citizen has nothing to do with the middle east
It is not a total war, and killing a couple thousand American civilians will do nothing to change the course of that war, the only thing it can actually do is piss the civilians off and give politicians more excuses to increase the intensity of the conflict.
Bombing cities, destroying production and industry, killing civilians who work in that industry and future draftees serves a military purpose, no matter how gruesome.
Terrorism is just bitterness from an insane radical minority that doesn't understand what they are doing and have a retarded and petty sense of morality, total war is total war and doesn't give a fuck about morals.
Don't ever mention education ever again as long as you're not able to see the nuance.

>"Surrender"
>"No"
>Drops bomb
>"Surrender"
>"No"
>Drops second bomb
>"Surrender"
>"Holy fuck I'm retarded"
>Surrenders

>Mongols didn't exist

Are Americans the turks of the modern era? They're disgusting, stupid, disliked by everybody in the world, subhumans with a superiority complex and warmongering beasts.

Thanks. Now explain again how this compares to the scale of ethnic cleansing, organised famines and civilian death toll in WW2 again?

As opposed to directly burning people alive in their homes, burying them alive, firing squads, etc. I'm still trying to figure out what your pea brain is trying to convince of.

Yes there is. I don't remember Americans organising famines, executing civilians en masse without trials, organising and legalizing rapes on an industrial scale or creating death camps of forced labor for the civilians or pows.

Great arguments, 10/10 rhetoric

15 is between 6 and 8, moron.

>We don't need your help Yankee
>BLITZ BLITZ BLITZ BLITZ BLITZ BLITZ
>Naw...
>AAAAAAAAAAAH!! OH NOOOOOOOOOOO!!
OMG HALP!!
>yawn...
>NANI!! BOOM!!
>Fuck... ALRIGHT!!

America education

I don't understand how anyone could pretend that WW1 somehow had more war crimes than WW2 when the spread of casualties is so fucking high and the examples for the second so fucking abundant.

To show EVERYONE else they can do it and there is more where that came from.

>I don't understand how anyone could pretend that WW1 somehow had UNDOCUMENTED more war crimes than WW2
tis a mystery sweety

t. disgusting, stupid, disliked by everybody in the world, subhuman with an inferiority complex

let me guess, stalin dickrider?

facinghistory.org/weimar-republic-fragility-democracy/politics/casualties-world-war-i-country-politics-world-war-i

>undocumented
>that means I can imagine how many casualties I want lmao
Ok cool, bye.

Did it hurt my ameriburguer friend?

>was just as bad
No it wasn't, maybe the total japanese deaths maybe but just the nukes?
lmao laughable, the japanese killed almost as many as the nazis did.

>knocking protestants while also feigning moral superiority in the same breath
kek

Because the Amerikikes were the bad guys in WWII, led by Schlomo Goldenberg behind the scenes

Faggot, they are documented now. Check the links I provided.

I did and there is nothing that didn't happen during WW2 as well.

Krauts have no business speaking about their weaknesses in the market of military slavery for their Fuhrer's halfbreed cock.

So you agree to my argument then, awesome! My job is done here.

What you missed is that no one cares about the meme opinion of some low-iq nobody somewhere on the internet
Sorry

You care enough to reply tho ;) Cry more

>The war crimes committed by other nations during the Great War from NON-Americans was greater than any of the collateral damage during WW2.
"No!"

So what's your ethical principle ? Is killing innocents in favor of "the greater good" ethically warranted ? Because none of what you've quoted supports your position unless you think the Japanese people were responsible because ;

1. they paid taxes which eventually helped fund the soldiers that went on to rape, kill and pillage.

2. they didn't agitate for the removal of the Emperor after hearing of the atrocities they committed (assuming they were even given accurate reports and not some propaganda)

What your post amounts to is a tu quoque fallacy not anything actually substantial, it would just mean both America and Japan were bad for committing the "crimes" they did, which is the general position most people take i think.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=M4m_BwYeIRo

m.youtube.com/watch?v=lnAC-Y9p_sY

Why the fuck does this even matter when america is currently the leading cause of terrorism in the world? Why the fuck doesn't anybody do anything to stop those retards? Do Europeans not know how dumb the average american actually is?
And how fucking scary people that stupid are in charge of choosing leaders for a nation that powerful?

No, again, what you don't understand is that I don't care about your opinion.
I do care about your stupidity and I find it fun. I mean what kind of moron would actually think that speaking like a 12 years old allows him to demonstrate any sort of point? that vanity is fascinating.

Not him, but the glaring flaw in your shitty reasoning is that you seem to consider imperial war-time Japan as a peaceful passive society, when it was a totalitarian regime where women and children were trained to use weapons, in a state of total war with every single segment of the economy made to serve the war effort.

Death before dishonor, but I wouldnt expect a basedboy cuck like you to understand.

Wow, you must be so mature! A true monarch of wisdom! What can a simpleton like me do to be more like a supreme emperor like you? Please, enlighten me :D and C R Y M O R E my stupid stupid amerifriend.

lol no I just enjoy watching you make a fool of yourself, keep at it, you're doing great

Name a single people’s who haven’t committed any atrocities across the years plz

>Unit 731
A necessary thing to further medicine (and it has)
>Rape of Nanking
Everyone hates the Chinese then and now
>Korean sex slaves
That's the Korean's history and legacy. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if in the next 100 years, they would still be used as that in the next wars. It's just their nature.
>Tried to take over the entire continent of Asia
Not a bad change of owners desu
>Killed millions
To save billions

Try harder.

This, hopefully, more nations can be suicidal enough to spare the rest of the world's population who have a will to love.

Oof, careful with the edge here bud.

James Macallan

t. will cry and beg for mercy the day he has to walk the walk.

You sure do my retarded friend. You sure do. Dont forget to wipe the tears! ;)

first nuke to defeat them
second nuke to create anime
third nuke would have make anime real but the USA was too much of a pussy for this

>when it was a totalitarian regime where women and children were trained to use weapons
So ?

>in a state of total war with every single segment of the economy made to serve the war effort.
So the first point then, the one i mentionned about taxes, more or less but how is that a flaw in my reasoning ?
Was 9/11 justified because the twin towers were an economic center and are attacks against civilians living in Western countries involved in wars in the Middle East or otherwise legitimate targets because they pay taxes too ?

The Japs were brainwashed by their government to believe the Americans were to come to rape their women and kill their babies. So they would kill themselves in droves because of it. The average Japanese citizen would rather kill off their bloodline into non-existence than surrender.

Kill yourself, you Korean dog. Your entire history consists of being sex dolls for the Chinese and Japanese.
You have no history.
Just cum.

what are you going to do about it, cry on Yea Forums?

lmao

The Japanese would have surrendered with out the bombs being dropped but the ruskies would have control of some of the Japanese islands leading to a "berlin wall" situation. Also nukes never get to be exposed as world ending super weapons.

The narrative of a weapon so powerful it even caused the fucking samurai to submit is useful even if it is not entirely true.

The nuke was only as morally wrong as "terror bombing" which is still pretty fucking bad but it did and has served as a great deterrent to any further full scale wars.

It's the ultimate sword of damocles and without them the cold war could have easily turned hot and seeing as both sides had nukes by then maybe even ends the world.

I think things turned out for the best

Fuck's sake, what's with retards and making false equivalences between terrorism and total war? see this There is no morality in total war, everything is a military objective.

Okay, I'll let you have the last word, but don't forget to wipe the tears, okay? ;)

lmao, imagine being this guy

lol don't forget to take your meds

To wipe out most of the Catholic Japanese population.

stop saying would of goddammit REEEEEEEEEEE

Attached: F8386C87-2785-4530-9AE9-B026EE240D18.jpg (600x600, 26K)

But we are discussing morality though, if you abandon it why discuss in the first place ? I also don't understand why you keep spamming total war when the argument i made about industries contributing to the war effort regardless of intent being the same in a state allegedly under "total war" and the U.S, i think you're just realizing the cognitive dissonance here. We're not talking about pragmatism but morality here, if we were we'd just talk about which cities would be best to carpet bomb but we're not.

My entire point is that there is no morality in total war. WW2 is one of the only examples of such a type of conflict. Moral consideration are an exercise for armchair philosopher debating about it 70 years after the fact.
If you want to understand how it is conducted and why the decisions that were taken were taken you have to consider things as they were. The war is a detriment to any nation fighting it, which as for single moral goal to preserve its own population from its effects. And that means engaging every mean society has to achieve that goal.
Including utterly destroying the other society means to achieve its own goal.
You can make a moral judgment on that years later and say it's bad, sure, thanks for that vital piece of information, modern philosophy thanks you for this incredible discovery.
However you cannot equate this to war crimes or terrorism against civilians, torture, rape and gruesome murder because the first has a clear military goal, the suffering it brings is collateral. The second has suffering as a purpose, and any advantage it might give militarily is collateral.
Bombing Japanese cities disrupts production, supplies, draft procedures and objectively helps the military situation by destroying the military capabilities of the enemy country.
Destroying the world trade center or raping Nankin has no such goal nor even effect. There is a clear moral difference because pragmatic total destruction serves a greater purpose. War crimes and terrorism do not.

>lowest crime rate in the world
Japan's idea of a perfect society is no one acknowledging how unhappy or slighted they are.

Not very likely. It would certainly cause an invasion of the host nation of which ever group tried to take credit though.

If it's internal actors, well then you get more of a 1984-style authoritarian backlash.

>t. Mohammed The "Honor" Killer

Read the Sum of All Fears (don't bother with the movie because it sucks)
tl;dr it could

Hmm by all means based and redpilled

TWO nukes were unfair! Japan called TIME OUT.

You're literally contradicting yourself though, you're imposing a moral imperative, the preservation of your nation/people but then go on to say that morality doesn't matter in total war. It's not armchair philosophy to be consistent and actually guided by moral principles, you could say that a nation ought to value its citizens more than the citizens it is at war with and therefore justifying some degree of attack on civilians but to say that moral considerations are an exercise for armchair philosophers is just deeply retarded.
It's equatable to "terrorism" since by definition "terrorism" has a greater political or military goal, it's not just causing suffering for the heck of it.
>Destroying the world trade center or raping Nankin has no such goal nor even effect.
They both did though ; en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_effects_of_the_September_11_attacks
Politically putting a city to the sword like Nankin has its uses as well.

this triggered the seething cucks

better question is why didn't they drop a nuke on berlin or stalingrad instead? because yellow people don't live there obviously.

because germany had surrendered and berlin was occupied by multiple forces and we werent at war with the russians so why bomb stalingrad? moron shitposter

>baww the islands were ours even though none of our people ever lived there

Filthy dumb
Argie scum

>You're literally contradicting yourself though
No I'm not, there are no moral imperative in the CONDUCT of war, of course there are moral reasons to conduct it on that scale in the first place, try to actually read my shit.
As for the second part of your retarded post, the economic consequences of terrorism are negligible and will never impact the ability of a country such as the US to wage a low intensity war in the middle east. I know it, you know, Bin Laden knew it. Even destroying the pentagon wouldn't impair the US military one bit. Again, suffering and bitterness is the only 'higher goal' behind such an act, not military reasons which are purely collateral and coincidental.
As for justifying the rape of Nankin from a military point of view, good luck with that. Stop accusing me of contradiction when your entire reasoning rests on a false equivalencce.

>a necessary thing to further medicine
That’s stupid. There’s a lot of stupid experiments intended to give the most pain.

>No I'm not, there are no moral imperative in the CONDUCT of war, of course there are moral reasons to conduct it on that scale in the first place, try to actually read my shit.
I am reading your shit and i'm saying it makes no sense to have moral principles but selectively choose where to apply them, it's inconsistent ; en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion
A contradiction in principle leads to conradictions in action.

>the economic consequences of terrorism are negligible

So you didn't read the article ?

>Again, suffering and bitterness is the only 'higher goal' behind such an act, not military reasons which are purely collateral and coincidental.
Yeah i guess Bin Laden chose the world trade center just because it looked cool, super coincidental and collateral he was just angry and wanted to kill people.

But even if i granted you all of this, you're not realising that you don't have a problem with 9/11 just the scale of it, so your arguments in no way morally condemn such acts you just think it should've been done on a bigger scale.

you're retarded if you think american leadership weren't aware of the threat the red army posed. your country is still in a cold war with the successor to russia to this day. they could have decisively ended the threat of communism then and there but they didn't because nukes are only to be used on subhumans.

youre retarded if you think the americans were stupid enough to plunge the world straight into ww3 immediately after ww2. they were well aware of the threat the russians made but werent willing to engage with a full scale land war across europe weeks/months after the capitulation of germany. Not only were the americans rapidly trying to produce more nukes but dropping one or two on the soviets would have done little, plus good luck getting past the soviet air defence and air force, japan got nuked because americans had total air superiority for months.

>I know the 'japs' did horrible shit but nuking was just as bad.
not even close lol

>men, women, children, and infants interned at prisoner of war camps were subjected to vivisection, often without anesthesia and usually ending with the death of the victim.[20] Vivisections were performed on prisoners after infecting them with various diseases.

>Prisoners had limbs amputated in order to study blood loss. Those limbs that were removed were sometimes re-attached to the opposite sides of the body. Some prisoners had their stomachs surgically removed and the esophagus reattached to the intestines. Parts of organs, such as the brain, lungs, and liver, were removed from some prisoners

>Physiologist Yoshimura Hisato conducted experiments by taking captives outside, dipping various appendages into water, and allowing the limb to freeze. Once frozen, which testimony from a Japanese officer said "was determined after the 'frozen arms, when struck with a short stick, emitted a sound resembling that which a board gives when it is struck'",[33] ice was chipped away and the area doused in water.

>Human targets were used to test grenades positioned at various distances and in different positions. Flamethrowers were tested on humans. Humans were also tied to stakes and used as targets to test pathogen-releasing bombs, chemical weapons, and explosive bombs.[36]

>Subjects were deprived of food and water to determine the length of time until death; placed into high-pressure chambers until death; experimented upon to determine the relationship between temperature, burns, and human survival; placed into centrifuges and spun until death; injected with animal blood; exposed to lethal doses of x-rays; subjected to various chemical weapons inside gas chambers; injected with sea water; and burned or buried alive.

>Some tests had no medical purpose at all with instead intent to administer excruciating pain, such as injecting horse urine into prisoners' kidneys.

>A contradiction in principle leads to conradictions in action
À proposition you can't demonstrate, or I would be really interested in looking at the data and evidence you have to support this simplistic claim.
You also still haven't demonstrated how it is a contradiction on my part.
Yes I read the article, and I found nothing that profoundly impaired America's ability to conduct a war. So yes, from a military point of view, the economic consequences were negligible. It didn't impact the military, it didn't impact standards of living. If Bin Laden indeed had such a goal, why not choose military targets. How will blowing up WTC impact the war in any way? Again, you draw a false equivalence between terrorism and total war and don't bother explaining why they would be the same thing from a moral point of view.
Your argument equally condemns every action with no nuance as to the specific circumstances of each and the moral imperatives that drove them. Which is not only paradoxical, but makes the argument worthless by the obvious false equivalence and contradictions it brings.

>114664517
This, both hiroshima and nagasaki had the largest catholic population. The allies leaders were all freemasonic, and the freemasonry has a large history of being anti christian

To scare the absolute fuck out of Russia.

>what mental retardation looks like in real life: the post

they didnt care lol

>He said he had told Stalin that, after long experimentation, we had developed a new bomb far more destructive than any other known bomb, and that we planned to use it very soon unless Japan surrendered. Stalin’s only reply was to say that he was glad to hear of the bomb and he hoped we would use it. I was surprised at Stalin’s lack of interest. I concluded that he had not grasped the importance of the discovery. I thought that the following day he would ask for more information. He did not. Later I concluded that, because the Russians kept secret their developments in military weapons, they thought it improper to ask us about ours.

Attached: tenor[1].gif (290x300, 2.98M)

>But even if i granted you all of this, you're not realising that you don't have a problem with 9/11 just the scale of it, so your arguments in no way morally condemn such acts you just think it should've been done on a bigger scale.
It is not a problem of scale but a problem of purpose.
Blowing up the WTC serves no military purpose. It won't change anything. Which makes all those dead useless. They simply died because a terrorist wanted to kill them.
Civilian and innocents die by the drove in war, which is of course horrifying and morally condemnable by armchair philosophers with no alternative to give. But as horrible as it is, their deaths served a strategic purpose. Which doesn't change anything for them or their loved ones but makes condemning those who took the decision to bomb the cityas well as those who did harder than condemning a simple terrorist. The moral behind the condemnation of both acts is not the same and never will be.

Good. It’s more peaceful with the Americans on top than anyone else.

Why can got shit up the board and chink bait like this kept up?

name the atrocities committed by Liechtenstein

>À proposition you can't demonstrate, or I would be really interested in looking at the data and evidence you have to support this simplistic claim.
I posted a wiki article about the principle of explosion it's fucking logic 101, if you're not even clear on your foundations of course you're going to contradict yourself down the line, you're making your cummies the ultimate arbitor of what should be right instead of anything solid, like principles.

>You also still haven't demonstrated how it is a contradiction on my part.
Because you say that there are moral principles but go on to talk about how they don't matter when it comes to other countries or people you're at war with, because "total war".

You realise 9/11 lead to the war on terror and the eventual debt crisis right ? You could say it was ineffective at destroying the U.S economy but to say the impacts were negligible is just objectively wrong ; thebalance.com/national-debt-by-year-compared-to-gdp-and-major-events-3306287

> If Bin Laden indeed had such a goal, why not choose military targets.
Because there are many ways to get to a country's military you even said so yourself
>Bombing Japanese cities disrupts production, supplies, draft procedures and objectively helps the military situation by destroying the military capabilities of the enemy country

> you draw a false equivalence between terrorism and total war
You're the one doing it though, you justified the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by saying that the facilities hit impaired the military capabilities of Japan and i'm saying it's the same logic the people behind 9/11 used to justify the attacks, it was one of many reasons they did it of course but it was still one of them.
Hence why i said you don't have a problem with the act itself but the scale of it, if it's small it's bad if it wipes out entire cities it's good and justified.

>werent willing to engage with a full scale land war across europe weeks

moron. they had nukes while everyone else didn't at that fucking point in time. they could have ended everything decisively. but they didn't. that was my point. and in return they got 70 years of cold war with the russian president now controlling the white house via his installed puppet

And if we had let the Russians take Japan, they never would have left
Ever if North Korea? That's the part of Korea that the Russians zerg rushed at the end of ww2, after they learned that we used the bomb and they the Russians wanted to grab as much as land as they could before the japs surrendered

>Blowing up the WTC serves no military purpose.
It did though i think i've proven beyond reasonable doubt that the attack had a pretty major impact on the U.S economy (the links i posted earlier). To reduce the terrorists motive to "dey evil dey hate our freedumbs dey just want 2 kill ppl" because you can't imagine your enemy having an iota of intelligence is stupid and something the U.S military, thank God, doesn't really fall for anymore.

Of course he would say that, the duplicitous fuck.

youre proving youre a dense zoomer who gets their history knowledge from call of duty.

they had two nukes and used them on japan. they were scrambling to produce more incase they had to bomb japan even more. to be able to do strategtic bombing you have to have a heavy air superiority over the area or risk major causalities and plane loses, this is what happened over germany. within japan, they could fly freely because the japanese air force was almost entirely grounded due to a lack of planes and fuel, this would have not been the case in russia. to even conceve dropping nukes on moscow, stalingrad or leningrad, you would have to have a working airfield within a decent radius that can support 4 engine bombers. be able to get the nukes actually into the zone and drop it, all of which were virtually impossible with the destroyed battlefield known as europe and complete soviet air superiority over the whole of eastern europe.

youre a dumb fuck zoomer if you think you could casually engage a land war in europe in 45/46 and just casually drop a few nukes on moscow.

>hur dur why didnt they start ww3 after ww2 and just fix everything in my ultra hypothetical scenario with no facts or a grounded situation as the basis, just my 14 year old sensibilities and "knowledge"
>the russian president now controlling the white house via his installed puppet

Attached: 664[1].jpg (558x614, 18K)

based

America knew the Japs were going to lose to Russia. If the Russians nabbed Japan, the cold war would have been a biiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitch.

>I posted a wiki article about the principle of explosion it's fucking logic 101, if you're not even clear on your foundations of course you're going to contradict yourself down the line, you're making your cummies the ultimate arbitor of what should be right instead of anything solid, like principles.
I'm done with your dumb ass as long as you can't point the contradiction you claim to have found for three posts now.
>Because you say that there are moral principles but go on to talk about how they don't matter when it comes to other countries or people you're at war with, because "total war".
A country has no moral obligations towards the citizen of a country it is at war with beyond the Geneva convention. The rest is what defines a war crime or terrorism. Purpose is what defines a war crime or terrorism. Not war itself.
>You realise 9/11 lead to the war on terror and the eventual debt crisis right ?
The debt crisis was a global crisis with a million of factors that were more prevalent than the world trade center, and drawing a causality between the two will require a lot more on your part than 'it just did lol'

this isnt really true, they americans actually pushed for a promise from the soviets that they would join the war against japan, the americans activly wanted the russians to push from the other front.

>Hence why i said you don't have a problem with the act itself but the scale of it, if it's small it's bad if it wipes out entire cities it's good and justified.
You really are just pretending to not understand my point right? Purpose. Not scale. Hiroshima and Nagasaki indeed played an important role in Japan's capitulation, as shown by testimonies and transcripts of the Japanese high commands meetings in the following days. You try to draw an equivalence between the bloodiest conflict in human history fought by totalitarian regimes which had radicalized their own civilian populations and political elites to extremes never encountered before in history with a low intensity war on a political faction in Afghanistan which was the result of that terrorist attack. The US wasn't at war, this terrorist attack would''t solve any conflict whatsoever, would' 't impair the capacity of the US to fight one even indirectly. It has no moral justification. Context and purpose matter when trying to play with morals, you can't say that everything is the same despite those obvious differences.

So you can link to how many shitty unrelated articles as you like, I only have one for you, the basis of your entire reasoning and it's this one
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence

Is it ironic that more Japanese Americans came out of those camps, than went in?
My grandparents lived next to one of the biggest family camps in the US. Funnily enough it's a high school now. They still have some of the housing foundations in the corner

Why do the japs have a stick up their qss about being a 1st class nation?

>It did though i think i've proven beyond reasonable doubt that the attack had a pretty major impact on the U.S economy (the links i posted earlier).
No, you've posted a link and said 'it had consequences I swear'.
you haven't explained shit or how it had any consequences on the conflict at hand.
Of course towers falling and thousands of dead have consequences, but do they have lasting conseuqncesp? Do they actually destabilize the country, stop public services from working, impoverished the population, diminished its capacities to project military power or even diminished its military capabilities or will to intervene at all?
No.
>To reduce the terrorists motive to "dey evil dey hate our freedumbs dey just want 2 kill ppl" because you can't imagine your enemy having an iota of intelligence
I'm not reducing it to that, I'm saying that if they have other motives these motives are delusional at best and lies to their followers at worst.

It's like talking to indoctrinated brick walls i'm done here please consider suicide

>they would of
American education, everyone.

>hurr indoctrination
Yeah sure, go fuck yourself you damn hypocrite. Try building coherent arguments and arguing properly instead of linking to the Wikipedia articles that consitute your entire knowledge of rhetoric.
Try understanding and considering my point instead of being a cowardly bitch, I had enough respect to debate your shit with honesty.

why is this on every board slope. i wish more nippers had died. can you just kys in a suicide forest or bomb a subway

Yea Forums - Television & Film

No one is innocent, not even me. I literally fucked my mother for no other reason than she was drunk and lonely.

And none of you will ever find out who I am because this board is anonymous af and I can just claim I was trolling or w/e but only I will know the truth that I came inside her and was switching between calling "mom" and her real name over and over when calling her "mom" was getting too weird on account of her actually being my fucking mom.

God humanity is fucked up but I'm gonna fuck her later tonight and no one's going to stop me, least of all my dead dad.

Attached: 1557696728567.jpg (540x429, 61K)

So invading japan and killing more of them is better? Or maybe USA should have just left them alone?

I'll say this much about Asian males, they'll fight to the last man just because they're angry as fuck. So much so that it literally took wiping one of their biggest cities off of the map before the finally sat down and said "yeah, we should probably just surrender"

They're a lot tougher as a race then most people give them credit for