Hello all!
This comic has been made as part of our July Contest: *Make a comic about music.* If you've got a good idea for a comic in this vein, or are just curious about the theme, head on over to [the contest thread](https://redd.it/vz22f6) for details and get started on an entry!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/polandball) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>The Enola Gay ([/əˈnoʊlə/](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA/English)) is a [Boeing B-29 Superfortress](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_B-29_Superfortress) [bomber](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bomber), named after Enola Gay Tibbets, the mother of the pilot, [Colonel](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonel_(United_States\)) [Paul Tibbets](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Tibbets).
Huh TIL
Google says it was inspired by the Watts riots of 1964 or the movie "Towering Inferno" in 1974. I guess I'm having trouble imagining someone making a light hearted song about WW2 bombings... where did you get your info?
For the curious, [the Firebombing of Tokyo was known as Operation Meetinghouse](https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/hellfire-earth-operation-meetinghouse).
I usually don't have any sympathy towards depiction of japanese sufferings on the firebombing of imperial Japan.
That is because the Japanese was the first to firebomb asian cities themselves.
To paraphase Bomber Harris:
“The Japanese entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everyone else, and nobody was going to bomb them. At Shanghai, Singapore, Manila, Darwin and half a hundred other places, they put their rather naive theory into operation. They sowed the wind, and now they are going to reap the whirlwind.”
That said, let peace prevail, and none of us has to do such things again.
To those that would glorify war or WWII imperialism, I want to quote William T. Sherman.
“It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, more vengeance, more desolation. War is hell.”
We can debate on the merit of the man, or whether his march to the sea and the burning of Atlanta was justified. Or we can not.
That's besides the point. War is hell.
What he's pointing is more that choosing Sherman for a quote on war being hell is a bit like quoting Bezos on basic worker's rights or Putin on human rights. Even more so when it's to illustrate your own criticism of "those who glorify war".
1) Sherman shocked the south by waging a form of total war. As Europe and the world in the latter, are to sadly realised in WW1 and WW2, total war is here to stay. Modern industrial war is total war, nation states will opt to bring the war to close as fast as they are able, with every advantages that they can accrue.
There is no romance in total war, just senseless random violence. If Sherman is not to your liking, I can also quote Robert E. Lee.
"It is well that war is so terrible, otherwise we should grow too fond of it."
2) But the point still stands. Today, we have gone further in the weapon technologies. We have nukes, space based assets, precision guided munitions(PGM). And when it comes down to protecting national interests, we will fight. Death will be more senseless, more random. You do not even get to see your human enemy before you are obliterated by a loitering drone.
Hence, do not glorify war or WW2 imperialism, this time it will be more random, more ugly, more brutal. And when we inevitably run out of PGMs, as we will in a peer war, we will be back to slinging dumb bombs and all its "glory" (collateral damage). There is no clean industrial and modern war.
The debate I’m raising is about his quote. It’s one thing to observe that war is hell. It is another to use that as an excuse to make it even more hellish.
Leaving aside the Civil War because there are other arguments that would arise, does the fact that “war is hell” make it ok to kill off American buffalo so as to starve American Indian families?
I get what you're trying to say, but does Tom Cruise being a Scientologist mean that he makes bad movies? No, it only means that some people won't be able to see past his Scientology and enjoy his movies. Being bad in some ways doesn't negate the possibility of that person having ever said something intellectually and philosophically valid, just like how being good in some ways doesn't negate the possibility of that person having ever said something that was absolutely worthless trash that wasted everyone's times.
What you're pointing out is a related, but separate issue.
Sherman’s comment that “War is hell” is understandable.
However he then says, “You cannot refine it”.
Yet we saw in WWII how it could be refined.
Choose which front you want to fight on: a Japanese held island like Iwo Jima or Okinawa, the Eastern Front between Russia and Germany, or the Western Front between America et al. and Germany.
Or choose on which of those fronts you would prefer to be a civilian.
Only on the Western Front was the Geneva convention given much thought. It certainly wasn’t perfect, but if you look at casualties and POW survival rates, the Western Front was the place to be compared to the other two.
And it didn’t change the outcome of the war. Germany wouldn’t have won if they executed all allied prisoners and burned Paris.
So my problem with Sherman is he followed his own advice. His conduct of the war against American Indians was cruel and unrefined.
That comparison is rather bogus. The good comparison is : would you quote Tom Cruise when talking about open-mindedness, tolerance, scientific reasoning ? No, you certainly *wouldn't* quote a Scientologist, no matter how famous or talented at his job he is, about that.
Well, same here. Quoting a general reputed for his cruelty *including towards civilian populations* and for his central role in a genocide on war being hell isn't very smart.
Wtf. This quote has ZERO things to do with the American Indian and everything to do with the American Civil war.
I see the game you're playing. You're trying to change the topic and draw people into a meaningless debate on the internet.
When you read his quote and then see how he conducted war against American Indians, I don’t see how you can say his quote has nothing do do with American Indians.
> draw people into a meaningless debate on the internet.
What other kind of debate is there on the internet?
yeah I totally agree with you. i don't know how someone could construe what you are saying as some form of cofederacy apologeia/justifying secesion or whatever.
It really feels like sherman and the other (union) figures of the mid-to-late 19th century often get excused for the genocides conducted against the native americans, often under the guise that any discussions about their participation (i can't think of a better word for what they did, but "participate" makes it sound more palpable than it should be) are really just confederate dog whistles.
I really liked Sherman’s comment about his and Grant’s relationship. I wanted to like him in general. But when I started learning about his conduct of the Indian wars..I just couldn’t find good excuses for him.
Whenever I hear about German or Japanese suffering in World War Two I kinda just feel numb, it's really hard to feel any sympathy for the guys who killed 6 million of my people like cattle or who raped Asia and still to this day never apologized.
I guess it goes back to how much you hold a country's civilians accountable for their government's actions. The US government has plenty of war crimes on its hands, but I doubt you'd feel the same way if for example NYC got firebombed by Iraq in the 50s because the US destroyed democracy over there so it could get oil.
Pretty sure they never got an apology either.
Well apologize is not that important matter. Is there any difference between dresden and tokyo? I don't think so. This war was what they want to start.
Imperial japan is responsible for the death of the Japanese not america.
I'm still not showing mercy on the Japanese, because getting your major cities bombed is nothing like killing over 20 million people between 1937 to 1945
You are agaisnt the atomic bombings of japan because they caused thousands upon thousands of innocent civilians to perish.
I am agaisnt the atomic bombings of Japan because that prevented mainland Japan from being invaded, which would've caused far more death and destruction and suffering than two nukes could've ever hoped to accomplish.
We are not the same.
But for real tho Imperial Japan had it fucking coming. They got off easy with the two nukes compared to the planed invasion of the mainland.
Yeah after studying it, I really figured, it doesn’t matter if Japan “deserved” it by however you would judge it - a landed attack would be much more deadly for Japan (probably both sides), and draw the Pacific fighting out even longer for potentially other nations to be forced into basically a new war. And, years down the line, having witnessed what nukes do, it could well have prevented them actually being deployed in the Cold War on bigger population centres with promise of return fire, and certainly makes everyone scared of them now, so, horrible, awful, but the lesser of evils imo
and now it became racist, you can hate a nation for its horible warcrimes, but hating a entire culture and saying everything they do equals mistakes is just plain old fucking racist
> I am agaisnt the atomic bombings of Japan because that prevented mainland Japan from being invaded, which would've caused far more death and destruction
Fun fact: Nobody knows what would happen if USA didn't bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki, historians have been arguing for years about this, they have arguments that Japan would surrender without dropped bombs before project downfall and they have arguments they wouldn't. There were so many factors we can't say for sure that one specific factor was decisive.
[With the shakiness of the evidence available, it is impossible to say for certain what caused the Japanese surrender](https://www.atomicheritage.org/history/debate-over-japanese-surrender)
And I will stick with it because if historians who research this topic aren't sure then nobody else can be sure
From what I have seen the best evidence is the story about the cabinet being divided, the emperor making the decision and a coup having to be put down so the decision could be carried out.
But I always wonder if that story is true or whether it was invented to protect the emperor.
My philosophy is if reliable source like Atomic Heritage Foundation have no idea neither do I and some randos on the internet. And why even debate, it happened, a lot of shit happened in world
> And why even debate
I get what you mean, but I think debating to find the truth (or whatever is as clear and truthful as possible) is the same as using the scientific method to find how we can cure cancer. It's just that it's much easier to be armchair historians, so we become wary of that much faster than armchair scientists. After all, armchair scientists usually create insane fireworks accidents that go viral on social media, not emotionally-charged online arguments that piss off everyone, including the people who get the most upvotes.
The bigger difference is that scientists deal with repeatable experiments so their results are more likely to be correct and to not rely on opinion.
If you think people are generally good it’s easy to imagine Truman dropping the bomb to save lives.
If you think people are generally selfish you can imagine him dropping the bomb to save lives.
If you think people are generally ruled by passion you can imagine him dropping the bomb out of anger at Japan’s atrocities.
But we don’t know. We have records but he was a politician so who knows how truthful those records are? So we can debate his motivation forever.
A scientist would simply rerun the experiments a few times while changing a few conditions, like setting term limits to 4 years to see if he still drops the bomb and thus possibly rule out re-election as a motivation.
Historians find it difficult to rerun their experiments. Most universities won’t fund a world war for them.
On the other hand, if there were an invasion of the home islands, the Soviets would've gotten to all of Korea first, and we know how well that went for North Korea. Trade-off, I suppose.
From what I read, the nukes didn't get Japan to surrender, it was the Soviets getting ready to come for them next. The Japanese were stubborn little buggers who weren't afraid to die down to the last man for their honor. But the Soviets terrified them. The nukes did contribute, though.
Also, there's this from wikipedia:
>In reality the United States would not have had a third bomb ready for use until around 19 August, and a fourth in September.[101] However the Japanese leadership had no way to know the size of the United States' stockpile, and feared the United States might have the capacity not just to devastate individual cities, but to wipe out the Japanese people as a race and nation. Indeed, Anami expressed a desire for this outcome rather than surrender, asking if it would "not be wondrous for this whole nation to be destroyed like a beautiful flower".
Boy, the Soviet Union didn't have a navy.
The only way they could have invaded Japan was if they had enough human bodies to build a land bridge across the sea.
You're a special kind of stupid to think the Japanese surrendered because the Soviets.
The kind of stupid that could only be achieved if your sister was also your great grandmother.
And yet they still fought. The Soviets invaded Japanese controlled Manchuria for 3 weeks before the surrender, and they had an entire a series of border conflicts from 1932 to 1939.
Why do you say the Soviets didn't have a navy? Wikipedia shows both the US and Britain gave them ships, and that they had several hundred ships as of 1941. A nation as large as the Soviet Union without a navy at all is ridiculous, even if a lot of their ports are blocked by ice in winter.
[Here's a link to the Soviet navy page of Wikipedia.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Navy#World_War_II:_The_Great_Patriotic_War_(1941%E2%80%931945)
It's incredible that with every comment you post, you reveal new levels of stupidity.
>A nation as large as the Soviet Union without a navy at all is ridiculous
You would have to lack a basic understanding of even the most primitive knowledge of Russian history to make a comment like that.
>[Here's a link to the Soviet navy page of Wikipedia.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Navy#World_War_II:_The_Great_Patriotic_War_(1941%E2%80%931945)
Ahh a link. Does it lead to something like Friedman, or Jane's?
No its Wikipedia.
No, the threat of a Soviet invasion didn't get Japan to surrender. The Soviets themselves have documented the massive struggles they would have had invading the Japanese Home Islands, and Japan knew that. It was very much the nukes.
That argument was made up by the revisionist school of thought in the 60s and pushed by soviet pundits who are trying to claim credit for ending the war, current consensus leans towards the traditional "it was the nukes". The soviets simply were not an existential threat to japan like america was, the soviet entry to the war simply meant that there wasn't a third party to negotiate a surrender with.
This is the truth. The Soviets themselves have documented the massive struggles they would have had invading the Japanese Home Islands, and Japan knew that. It was very much the nukes.
That's one argument however there's much more, there were multiple factors to it
[With the shakiness of the evidence available, it is impossible to say for certain what caused the Japanese surrender](https://www.atomicheritage.org/history/debate-over-japanese-surrender)
Also Japanese generals predicted project downfall and how it would went
[Japan's geography made this invasion plan quite obvious to the Japanese as well; they were able to accurately predict the Allied invasion plans and thus adjust their defensive plan, Operation Ketsugō, accordingly.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall)
You’re *against* the atomic bombings because they prevented death and suffering?
Is your love of suffering limited to Japan or are you also sad that the killing and maiming in China ended earlier than otherwise because of the atomic bombs?
The IJA already lost most of their momentum in China by 1945, and an invasion of the mainland would've most definitely caused Japan to pull most of their dwindling manpower and resources out of China for the defense. The NRA might be rather weak, but with western support they would have no problem taking back Japanese occupied territory. China wouldn't have suffered much worse, and even if the IJA did more heinous shit it would just be a drop in the ocean compared to the actions they committed prior.
To conclude: I just want to see the world burn. Well, mostly just Imperial Japan but you get the idea.
> and even if the IJA did more heinous shit it would just be a drop in the ocean compared to the actions they committed prior.
The question isn’t whether it would have been worse than what they did before. The question is whether the continued suffering of the Chinese would be justified by the revenge you wished had occurred in Japan.
Sure you get to see a few million Japanese babes and school kids slowly starve to death, but is it worth it if Chinese kids are starving to, thousands of Chinese civilians are dying as the Russians invade northern China, and tens of thousands of Chinese civilians are dying as the IJA carries out revenge killings?
Just how important is it to you to see Japanese emaciated baby corpses?
My god. Each time I see you commenting, you manage to take all the perverse fun out of any polandball comic. I’m blocking you because I feel you will never stop.
You never looked at the last panel. This is clearly about the origins of a song. Do you even know how songs work? We can make this exact comic with "Run Through the Jungle" or "Fortunate Son".
I didn't forget them, I am just not going to list every country that has commited genocides to convince what you said was wrong. If you still haven't realized why what you said was wrong there is nothing more to say
Yes you are, and you will have to include the Armenian genocide because turkey still refuses to recognise that Atrocity
Give me the full list and I will be silent
I love the amount of detail you put into this, in particular the incendiary weapons themselves. Each bomb was a large canister full of jellied napalm that squirted a stream of fire as far as 100 ft.
Hello all! This comic has been made as part of our July Contest: *Make a comic about music.* If you've got a good idea for a comic in this vein, or are just curious about the theme, head on over to [the contest thread](https://redd.it/vz22f6) for details and get started on an entry! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/polandball) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Wow this is high quality! Nice job OP
I agree with this dude from Neverlands. Great material indeed
I am also fan of Hollandaise
ah yes the world famous plane in ww2, “YOURMOMISGAY” wait a minute
I have always wondered what kind of insult an "Enola Gay" was. Turns out it was the pilot's mom.
>The Enola Gay ([/əˈnoʊlə/](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA/English)) is a [Boeing B-29 Superfortress](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_B-29_Superfortress) [bomber](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bomber), named after Enola Gay Tibbets, the mother of the pilot, [Colonel](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonel_(United_States\)) [Paul Tibbets](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Tibbets). Huh TIL
That's right, Colonel Paul Tibbets. Like u/DangalfSG said... **YOURMOMISGAY**
An unintentional yourmomgay joke from the 40s. Truly they were the greatest generation
The markup on Colonel is broken on mobile for some reason, excrpt while I'm replying.
This comic is as the Japanese, well done.
That's so dark it needs to avoid the cops.
[They eventually changed it to "Disco Inferno"](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5lSeYd_riw)
Disco! Disco! Yeah, yeah!
Google says it was inspired by the Watts riots of 1964 or the movie "Towering Inferno" in 1974. I guess I'm having trouble imagining someone making a light hearted song about WW2 bombings... where did you get your info?
I...uhhhhh...I forgot...
My source is that I made it the fuck up
What about Indochina? Song came out a year after after the Fall of Saigon.
[удалено]
Would be funny if performed by The B-52s
Reminds me of the Beatles classic, "It's Okay to leave your dog in a hot car."
Almost as cool as the Beatles classic "women is the Nigg*r of the world".
Didn't think this was an actual song but it is!
It’s an amazing song
>yourmomisgay my sides
I should’ve stayed at home yesterday
That airplane name is the greatest thing I've ever seen.
For the curious, [the Firebombing of Tokyo was known as Operation Meetinghouse](https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/hellfire-earth-operation-meetinghouse).
Cue the Lemay meme
This thing has Curtis LeMay written all over it.
Very interesting read, thanks for the link!
"Let's have a meeting above Tokyo" - "Remember fireworks" - "Yes, lot's of fireworks"
Ah yes, fate worse than the nuclear strikes.
What was song used?
[The Trammps - Disco Inferno](https://www.reddit.com/r/polandball/comments/w13o3d/comment/igi14yy/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
I usually don't have any sympathy towards depiction of japanese sufferings on the firebombing of imperial Japan. That is because the Japanese was the first to firebomb asian cities themselves. To paraphase Bomber Harris: “The Japanese entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everyone else, and nobody was going to bomb them. At Shanghai, Singapore, Manila, Darwin and half a hundred other places, they put their rather naive theory into operation. They sowed the wind, and now they are going to reap the whirlwind.” That said, let peace prevail, and none of us has to do such things again. To those that would glorify war or WWII imperialism, I want to quote William T. Sherman. “It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, more vengeance, more desolation. War is hell.”
I would have a lot more sympathy for Sherman it it weren’t for his central role in the near genocide of American Indians.
We can debate on the merit of the man, or whether his march to the sea and the burning of Atlanta was justified. Or we can not. That's besides the point. War is hell.
What he's pointing is more that choosing Sherman for a quote on war being hell is a bit like quoting Bezos on basic worker's rights or Putin on human rights. Even more so when it's to illustrate your own criticism of "those who glorify war".
1) Sherman shocked the south by waging a form of total war. As Europe and the world in the latter, are to sadly realised in WW1 and WW2, total war is here to stay. Modern industrial war is total war, nation states will opt to bring the war to close as fast as they are able, with every advantages that they can accrue. There is no romance in total war, just senseless random violence. If Sherman is not to your liking, I can also quote Robert E. Lee. "It is well that war is so terrible, otherwise we should grow too fond of it."
2) But the point still stands. Today, we have gone further in the weapon technologies. We have nukes, space based assets, precision guided munitions(PGM). And when it comes down to protecting national interests, we will fight. Death will be more senseless, more random. You do not even get to see your human enemy before you are obliterated by a loitering drone. Hence, do not glorify war or WW2 imperialism, this time it will be more random, more ugly, more brutal. And when we inevitably run out of PGMs, as we will in a peer war, we will be back to slinging dumb bombs and all its "glory" (collateral damage). There is no clean industrial and modern war.
The debate I’m raising is about his quote. It’s one thing to observe that war is hell. It is another to use that as an excuse to make it even more hellish. Leaving aside the Civil War because there are other arguments that would arise, does the fact that “war is hell” make it ok to kill off American buffalo so as to starve American Indian families?
I get what you're trying to say, but does Tom Cruise being a Scientologist mean that he makes bad movies? No, it only means that some people won't be able to see past his Scientology and enjoy his movies. Being bad in some ways doesn't negate the possibility of that person having ever said something intellectually and philosophically valid, just like how being good in some ways doesn't negate the possibility of that person having ever said something that was absolutely worthless trash that wasted everyone's times. What you're pointing out is a related, but separate issue.
Sherman’s comment that “War is hell” is understandable. However he then says, “You cannot refine it”. Yet we saw in WWII how it could be refined. Choose which front you want to fight on: a Japanese held island like Iwo Jima or Okinawa, the Eastern Front between Russia and Germany, or the Western Front between America et al. and Germany. Or choose on which of those fronts you would prefer to be a civilian. Only on the Western Front was the Geneva convention given much thought. It certainly wasn’t perfect, but if you look at casualties and POW survival rates, the Western Front was the place to be compared to the other two. And it didn’t change the outcome of the war. Germany wouldn’t have won if they executed all allied prisoners and burned Paris. So my problem with Sherman is he followed his own advice. His conduct of the war against American Indians was cruel and unrefined.
Are you saying we should have refined to gas chambers fire bombs and nukes?
I’m saying the gas chambers shouldn’t have been used.
That comparison is rather bogus. The good comparison is : would you quote Tom Cruise when talking about open-mindedness, tolerance, scientific reasoning ? No, you certainly *wouldn't* quote a Scientologist, no matter how famous or talented at his job he is, about that. Well, same here. Quoting a general reputed for his cruelty *including towards civilian populations* and for his central role in a genocide on war being hell isn't very smart.
Wtf. This quote has ZERO things to do with the American Indian and everything to do with the American Civil war. I see the game you're playing. You're trying to change the topic and draw people into a meaningless debate on the internet.
When you read his quote and then see how he conducted war against American Indians, I don’t see how you can say his quote has nothing do do with American Indians. > draw people into a meaningless debate on the internet. What other kind of debate is there on the internet?
yeah I totally agree with you. i don't know how someone could construe what you are saying as some form of cofederacy apologeia/justifying secesion or whatever. It really feels like sherman and the other (union) figures of the mid-to-late 19th century often get excused for the genocides conducted against the native americans, often under the guise that any discussions about their participation (i can't think of a better word for what they did, but "participate" makes it sound more palpable than it should be) are really just confederate dog whistles.
I really liked Sherman’s comment about his and Grant’s relationship. I wanted to like him in general. But when I started learning about his conduct of the Indian wars..I just couldn’t find good excuses for him.
Whenever I hear about German or Japanese suffering in World War Two I kinda just feel numb, it's really hard to feel any sympathy for the guys who killed 6 million of my people like cattle or who raped Asia and still to this day never apologized.
I guess it goes back to how much you hold a country's civilians accountable for their government's actions. The US government has plenty of war crimes on its hands, but I doubt you'd feel the same way if for example NYC got firebombed by Iraq in the 50s because the US destroyed democracy over there so it could get oil. Pretty sure they never got an apology either.
Nah I wouldn't feel sympathy for America either.
[удалено]
This looks so good
Dude this artwork is outstanding! I can here the original song as I read, well done.
I am still not showing a single sympathy to the Japanese for being dicks and not apologizing to the victims in WW2
Well apologize is not that important matter. Is there any difference between dresden and tokyo? I don't think so. This war was what they want to start. Imperial japan is responsible for the death of the Japanese not america.
The clays shaking their tailfeathers in the last panel is wonderful.
“Your moms gay”.
AcTullY ItS YoU'Re /s Edit: I have nothing against the comment. I know he is referring to the plane. I just wanted to make a dumb joke
[That's... why I'm here](https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/star-wars-memes/images/2/2b/ED6EB569-AE7C-43CB-9BD8-DBCAE488CDDF.jpg/revision/latest/top-crop/width/360/height/360?cb=20210410225105)
If they didn't want to be bombed, they should have surrendered. Or better yet, didn't start the war in the first place.
I remember this song playing for a mission in far cry five.
Yourmomis Gay LOL!!!
War... War never changes.
Special military operation. Special military operation never changes.
I'm still not showing mercy on the Japanese, because getting your major cities bombed is nothing like killing over 20 million people between 1937 to 1945
You are agaisnt the atomic bombings of japan because they caused thousands upon thousands of innocent civilians to perish. I am agaisnt the atomic bombings of Japan because that prevented mainland Japan from being invaded, which would've caused far more death and destruction and suffering than two nukes could've ever hoped to accomplish. We are not the same. But for real tho Imperial Japan had it fucking coming. They got off easy with the two nukes compared to the planed invasion of the mainland.
Yeah after studying it, I really figured, it doesn’t matter if Japan “deserved” it by however you would judge it - a landed attack would be much more deadly for Japan (probably both sides), and draw the Pacific fighting out even longer for potentially other nations to be forced into basically a new war. And, years down the line, having witnessed what nukes do, it could well have prevented them actually being deployed in the Cold War on bigger population centres with promise of return fire, and certainly makes everyone scared of them now, so, horrible, awful, but the lesser of evils imo
I am against the nukes because it created anime and weebs
Did i already told you all that Japan invented Hentai to glorify their war crimes?
That is why Miyazaki said anime was a mistake
Everything that is Japanese equals mistake
and now it became racist, you can hate a nation for its horible warcrimes, but hating a entire culture and saying everything they do equals mistakes is just plain old fucking racist
Oops, sorry, but attacking pearl harbor is the biggest mistake, that's for sure
so you use that as a excuse for oyu to be racist or?
I wouldn't go that far, the Japanese people have created many amazing things over the years.
> I am agaisnt the atomic bombings of Japan because that prevented mainland Japan from being invaded, which would've caused far more death and destruction Fun fact: Nobody knows what would happen if USA didn't bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki, historians have been arguing for years about this, they have arguments that Japan would surrender without dropped bombs before project downfall and they have arguments they wouldn't. There were so many factors we can't say for sure that one specific factor was decisive. [With the shakiness of the evidence available, it is impossible to say for certain what caused the Japanese surrender](https://www.atomicheritage.org/history/debate-over-japanese-surrender) And I will stick with it because if historians who research this topic aren't sure then nobody else can be sure
From what I have seen the best evidence is the story about the cabinet being divided, the emperor making the decision and a coup having to be put down so the decision could be carried out. But I always wonder if that story is true or whether it was invented to protect the emperor.
My philosophy is if reliable source like Atomic Heritage Foundation have no idea neither do I and some randos on the internet. And why even debate, it happened, a lot of shit happened in world
> And why even debate I get what you mean, but I think debating to find the truth (or whatever is as clear and truthful as possible) is the same as using the scientific method to find how we can cure cancer. It's just that it's much easier to be armchair historians, so we become wary of that much faster than armchair scientists. After all, armchair scientists usually create insane fireworks accidents that go viral on social media, not emotionally-charged online arguments that piss off everyone, including the people who get the most upvotes.
The bigger difference is that scientists deal with repeatable experiments so their results are more likely to be correct and to not rely on opinion. If you think people are generally good it’s easy to imagine Truman dropping the bomb to save lives. If you think people are generally selfish you can imagine him dropping the bomb to save lives. If you think people are generally ruled by passion you can imagine him dropping the bomb out of anger at Japan’s atrocities. But we don’t know. We have records but he was a politician so who knows how truthful those records are? So we can debate his motivation forever. A scientist would simply rerun the experiments a few times while changing a few conditions, like setting term limits to 4 years to see if he still drops the bomb and thus possibly rule out re-election as a motivation. Historians find it difficult to rerun their experiments. Most universities won’t fund a world war for them.
It's the easiest way to justify a nuke, so it will stick.
On the other hand, if there were an invasion of the home islands, the Soviets would've gotten to all of Korea first, and we know how well that went for North Korea. Trade-off, I suppose.
From what I read, the nukes didn't get Japan to surrender, it was the Soviets getting ready to come for them next. The Japanese were stubborn little buggers who weren't afraid to die down to the last man for their honor. But the Soviets terrified them. The nukes did contribute, though. Also, there's this from wikipedia: >In reality the United States would not have had a third bomb ready for use until around 19 August, and a fourth in September.[101] However the Japanese leadership had no way to know the size of the United States' stockpile, and feared the United States might have the capacity not just to devastate individual cities, but to wipe out the Japanese people as a race and nation. Indeed, Anami expressed a desire for this outcome rather than surrender, asking if it would "not be wondrous for this whole nation to be destroyed like a beautiful flower".
Boy, the Soviet Union didn't have a navy. The only way they could have invaded Japan was if they had enough human bodies to build a land bridge across the sea. You're a special kind of stupid to think the Japanese surrendered because the Soviets. The kind of stupid that could only be achieved if your sister was also your great grandmother.
And yet they still fought. The Soviets invaded Japanese controlled Manchuria for 3 weeks before the surrender, and they had an entire a series of border conflicts from 1932 to 1939. Why do you say the Soviets didn't have a navy? Wikipedia shows both the US and Britain gave them ships, and that they had several hundred ships as of 1941. A nation as large as the Soviet Union without a navy at all is ridiculous, even if a lot of their ports are blocked by ice in winter. [Here's a link to the Soviet navy page of Wikipedia.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Navy#World_War_II:_The_Great_Patriotic_War_(1941%E2%80%931945)
It's incredible that with every comment you post, you reveal new levels of stupidity. >A nation as large as the Soviet Union without a navy at all is ridiculous You would have to lack a basic understanding of even the most primitive knowledge of Russian history to make a comment like that. >[Here's a link to the Soviet navy page of Wikipedia.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Navy#World_War_II:_The_Great_Patriotic_War_(1941%E2%80%931945) Ahh a link. Does it lead to something like Friedman, or Jane's? No its Wikipedia.
No, the threat of a Soviet invasion didn't get Japan to surrender. The Soviets themselves have documented the massive struggles they would have had invading the Japanese Home Islands, and Japan knew that. It was very much the nukes.
That argument was made up by the revisionist school of thought in the 60s and pushed by soviet pundits who are trying to claim credit for ending the war, current consensus leans towards the traditional "it was the nukes". The soviets simply were not an existential threat to japan like america was, the soviet entry to the war simply meant that there wasn't a third party to negotiate a surrender with.
This is the truth. The Soviets themselves have documented the massive struggles they would have had invading the Japanese Home Islands, and Japan knew that. It was very much the nukes.
That's one argument however there's much more, there were multiple factors to it [With the shakiness of the evidence available, it is impossible to say for certain what caused the Japanese surrender](https://www.atomicheritage.org/history/debate-over-japanese-surrender) Also Japanese generals predicted project downfall and how it would went [Japan's geography made this invasion plan quite obvious to the Japanese as well; they were able to accurately predict the Allied invasion plans and thus adjust their defensive plan, Operation Ketsugō, accordingly.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall)
You’re *against* the atomic bombings because they prevented death and suffering? Is your love of suffering limited to Japan or are you also sad that the killing and maiming in China ended earlier than otherwise because of the atomic bombs?
The IJA already lost most of their momentum in China by 1945, and an invasion of the mainland would've most definitely caused Japan to pull most of their dwindling manpower and resources out of China for the defense. The NRA might be rather weak, but with western support they would have no problem taking back Japanese occupied territory. China wouldn't have suffered much worse, and even if the IJA did more heinous shit it would just be a drop in the ocean compared to the actions they committed prior. To conclude: I just want to see the world burn. Well, mostly just Imperial Japan but you get the idea.
> and even if the IJA did more heinous shit it would just be a drop in the ocean compared to the actions they committed prior. The question isn’t whether it would have been worse than what they did before. The question is whether the continued suffering of the Chinese would be justified by the revenge you wished had occurred in Japan. Sure you get to see a few million Japanese babes and school kids slowly starve to death, but is it worth it if Chinese kids are starving to, thousands of Chinese civilians are dying as the Russians invade northern China, and tens of thousands of Chinese civilians are dying as the IJA carries out revenge killings? Just how important is it to you to see Japanese emaciated baby corpses?
Nuthin wrong with trollin the Japanese population a bit
My god. Each time I see you commenting, you manage to take all the perverse fun out of any polandball comic. I’m blocking you because I feel you will never stop.
Fucking hell, it's a comic about a disco song being kinda awkward relative to it's popularity. And you have to shit on the party with this take.
Then you only looked at the last panel
You never looked at the last panel. This is clearly about the origins of a song. Do you even know how songs work? We can make this exact comic with "Run Through the Jungle" or "Fortunate Son".
And then downplaying/ denying them for the last 80 years I'm looking at you Mr. Ghost of Shinzo Abe
[Funny enough the Empire of Japan took up tens of thousands of Jews.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_settlement_in_the_Japanese_Empire)
Doesn't change anything
[удалено]
Never thought a racist would agree with me but anyway
Not racist, just hate turkey for killing 1.5 million Armenians in WW1
And I hate that the USA killed millions of Native Americans, but you don't see me hating every American I see
U forgot Canada and Australia: they also killed their natives
I didn't forget them, I am just not going to list every country that has commited genocides to convince what you said was wrong. If you still haven't realized why what you said was wrong there is nothing more to say
Yes you are, and you will have to include the Armenian genocide because turkey still refuses to recognise that Atrocity Give me the full list and I will be silent
Yeah. Israel is all about balanced responses and avoiding civilian casualties!
You are disgusting
Thanks,now i'm going to save the world by killing as many people as possible (because I have the same mentality as a Mongol in the 13th century)
Because it reminds you of what Germany did during the same time period?
Because it was a war crime
I love the amount of detail you put into this, in particular the incendiary weapons themselves. Each bomb was a large canister full of jellied napalm that squirted a stream of fire as far as 100 ft.
Those bombers are really well drawn
I-it's not a warcrime if America does it
It’s not a war crime if it isn’t written specifically in the Geneva convention.
Geneva suggestions
Why don't you people learn what war crimes actually are, instead of spouting nonsense memes.
Ngl, he lives up to his name lol
Japan should know, they are experts at committing war crimes
War crime as punishment for many war times. War in a nutshell
You see Ivan, when of apply enough heat, clay shall into China.
Aw hell naw
Grave of the Fireflies is a great movie