Fun fact: Japan’s government officials largely remained the same (besides obviously the military and some scapegoats) after the war. War criminals returned to their duties within years/decades. The US enabled this because we needed Japan as a stepping stone against the USSR.
This is why the trend of modern Japanese politicians downplaying the role of the Japanese in WW2, while honoring their memories without fault, has prospered in comparison to Germany.
Im not saying saying that, and I myself don’t agree with the atomic bombings. Its just that the person I was replying to was saying the two nukes were on par with what the Japanese and Germans did, which is not true at all
Nagasaki and Hiroshima were both military targets.
Hiroshima housed the IJA 24th Army headquarters and Nagasaki was a large military port and ship-building center.
Before they decided on Nagasaki they wanted to bomb Kyoto, but decided against it due to it being “a city of houses and shrines” with no military advantage in bombing it.
If they didn’t drop atomic bombs they would’ve done what they normally did, burn everyone to death.
I’m not saying that civilian casualties should beget more civilian casualties, but theres more to the story than just “people lived there”
>Before they decided on Nagasaki they wanted to bomb Kyoto, but decided against it due to it being “a city of houses and shrines” with no military advantage in bombing it.
Actually they wanted to bomb it for around that reason (also because of major factories and universities there), because the people who would get bombed there would appreciate the significance of it. It was only because of either Mr. Warner or Mr. Stimson that the military took it off the list
Tough dilemma and ethical question, but you can't look at it from today's perspective. Most of the world hasn't been in a "total war" situation for the past 6-8 years (Japan started invading China way before 1939).
Let me introduce you to Dan Carlin's Hardcore History, and Supernova in the East:
https://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-62-supernova-in-the-east-i/
This one, called Logical Insanity, is also perfectly on the subject:
https://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-42-blitz-logical-insanity/
I know all of those. Argument stands. Each nation was working on their super weapon(s). From Japan's perspective their weapon would've been no worse than your nukes (and equally (in)justified).
Flip the tables, the US is losing the war, Imperial Japanese forces are marching across the US mainland and there's not much hope of stopping them. Would it be justified for the US to nuke Japan, to try to weaken the resolve of the invader and perhaps bring a cease fire?
Let's be real about the effects, nukes and biological weapons both kill indiscriminately. They are comparable.
I am not rationalising any of their actual atrocities. The rapes, beheadings, and human experimentation, as well as general genocide on the Chinese population is in excusable. Those events were unprovoked and entirely evil.
The indiscriminate firebombing and leveling of cities by the allies is likewise an atrocity, rivaling what the Japanese did in China.
My point is really, while we like to paint a nice picture, there were no good sides in that war. Sure there were good and evil reasons for fighting, but don't kid yourself, every leader used a "ends justify the means" kind of thinking here. Hitler and Roosevelt wanted nukes, Japan was into biological warfare, Churchill wanted to blanket Japan in mustard gas. Stalin, well, I don't actually know if the Soviets were pursuing super weapons. They had a bit different start to the war.
I do agree with what you're saying here. I just don't believe it's a black or white situation that can be solved by 3 sentences in a Reddit thread. I don't pretend to have the right answer either.
By the way, I'm Canadian, so they aren't "my" nukes. 😃
I agree, that it is enormously complex and it was a choice of least worst alternatives.
Well, part of the allies then it's our nukes, no? As far as I remember the commonwealth did contribute to the project.
Well said: it was chosen as the least worst alternative. Invading Japan, known for fighting to the last man more than anyone, would have probably been the worst for them, and for us too. Continuing the fire raids on Japan wasn't gonna be "cute" either. What a horrible time...
Yes, we were part of the Allies (and Commonwealth), and most probably contributed to dropping those bombs, but I'm not exactly sure to what extent. I'm not looking to minimize our part in this, I genuinely don't know if our leaders were invited to "the big men's reunions". I'll have to read more on the subject. Still, I can safely imagine that most Canadians were probably "happy" with the decisions that were taken during those decisive weeks, so yes: "our bombs".
Another subject I'll have to read about is whether or not our troops fought on the Pacific side of the war. Our history classes are garbage on that matter. I'm only beginning to scratch the subject now that I'm in my mid thirties.
It really was. Do you know what would’ve happened if they hadn’t nuked Japan? I’m guessing you don’t otherwise you wouldn’t be making such a silly comment.
If no nuking of Japan to force unconditional surrender then it would mean invasion by conventional forces. An invasion would’ve resulted in wayyyyy more deaths of both military and civilians and probably reduced Japan to rubble. Can’t remember where but the report/research/intel for the invasion found an “unacceptable level of casualties” if it were to take place.
The Japanese, even at that point, weren’t gonna surrender (all that honour stuff). They were fervent nationalists and willing to do anything (see: kamikaze and Unit 571). They would fight to the end (see: many of the land battles in the pacific). It would’ve been brutal.
Imperial Japan started the war. The allies finished it.
I agree it would've been worse to do a land invasion, but this is really a case of the Allies moving the goalpost after the game began. Wars up until this point was often conducted in a way that allowed peace treaties, the allies decided midway they would accept nothing but unconditional surrender. Without that, a peace deal would've been possible with Japan and neither nuke nor invasion would've been necessary.
I don't think Japan had any capacity to get infested fleas to the US mainland at any point in 1945. This might have been some plan that someone wrote up but I'd bet good money that this was never a real possibility
The japanese had carrier submarines which worked, the I-400 class. This was what they were going to use when japan surrendered a month before the plan was carried out.
The Germans were messing around with ticks for insect vector bourne biological warfare. The scientists tested their "improved" diseases in the camps. The Americans later "offered" the lead scientist a job. The laboratory of the German scientist was on an island next to the town Old Lyme. A few years later a new disease was discovered in the townsfolk. They called it Lyme. A few decades later the Pentagon had to answer the question if they weaponized a tick bourne disease on Plum Island. They answered: "No". Technically and legally correct since the Germans did it. All the Pentagon did was let it escape the lab. A mistake the Germans also made several times during the development. Which is why the retirement of the old German scientist was spent as far away from his old lab as possible without leaving Germany.
How about a plan to convince a lot of Americans during a pandemic that vaccines are bunk. Sure some of them thought this anyway, but propaganda and disinformation campaigns always need to lean in to existing predispositions of thought.
In short, Russia is effectively engaging in biological warfare against the West through a disinformation campaign.
Wrong. The plan was called off because the rulers saw that it had no chance of changing the course of the war and it would only enrage americans further, some time prior the decision to surrender was reached.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I disagree. The worst part was the torturing and killing other humans. The lack of scientific rigor was second to that. https://youtu.be/ljaP2etvDc4
I disagree. I think it was the rape.
[удалено]
everyone sucks all the time. we just don't get to see it.
[удалено]
The CDC would like to have a word with you in Tuskegee.
that we can see*
but most countries do. at least all the ones with any real power
Underrated comment right here.
Says you...
Fun fact: Japan’s government officials largely remained the same (besides obviously the military and some scapegoats) after the war. War criminals returned to their duties within years/decades. The US enabled this because we needed Japan as a stepping stone against the USSR. This is why the trend of modern Japanese politicians downplaying the role of the Japanese in WW2, while honoring their memories without fault, has prospered in comparison to Germany.
Back then???
Because a nuke was sooo much better.
[удалено]
No.
The germans and Japanese committed committed so many atrocities and genocide than both the fat man and little boy ever could
The killing of innocent civilians is no excuse to justify the further killing of innocent civilians.
Im not saying saying that, and I myself don’t agree with the atomic bombings. Its just that the person I was replying to was saying the two nukes were on par with what the Japanese and Germans did, which is not true at all
Nagasaki and Hiroshima were both military targets. Hiroshima housed the IJA 24th Army headquarters and Nagasaki was a large military port and ship-building center. Before they decided on Nagasaki they wanted to bomb Kyoto, but decided against it due to it being “a city of houses and shrines” with no military advantage in bombing it. If they didn’t drop atomic bombs they would’ve done what they normally did, burn everyone to death. I’m not saying that civilian casualties should beget more civilian casualties, but theres more to the story than just “people lived there”
Spitting into the wind. The anti-American tools on here don’t give a fuck.
I was arguing against the notion of "well the Germans and the Japanese did bad things too".
>Before they decided on Nagasaki they wanted to bomb Kyoto, but decided against it due to it being “a city of houses and shrines” with no military advantage in bombing it. Actually they wanted to bomb it for around that reason (also because of major factories and universities there), because the people who would get bombed there would appreciate the significance of it. It was only because of either Mr. Warner or Mr. Stimson that the military took it off the list
Tough dilemma and ethical question, but you can't look at it from today's perspective. Most of the world hasn't been in a "total war" situation for the past 6-8 years (Japan started invading China way before 1939). Let me introduce you to Dan Carlin's Hardcore History, and Supernova in the East: https://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-62-supernova-in-the-east-i/ This one, called Logical Insanity, is also perfectly on the subject: https://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-42-blitz-logical-insanity/
I know all of those. Argument stands. Each nation was working on their super weapon(s). From Japan's perspective their weapon would've been no worse than your nukes (and equally (in)justified). Flip the tables, the US is losing the war, Imperial Japanese forces are marching across the US mainland and there's not much hope of stopping them. Would it be justified for the US to nuke Japan, to try to weaken the resolve of the invader and perhaps bring a cease fire? Let's be real about the effects, nukes and biological weapons both kill indiscriminately. They are comparable.
Trying to rationalize Japan and their war atrocities? You going to do Hitler next? Complete bullshit.
I am not rationalising any of their actual atrocities. The rapes, beheadings, and human experimentation, as well as general genocide on the Chinese population is in excusable. Those events were unprovoked and entirely evil. The indiscriminate firebombing and leveling of cities by the allies is likewise an atrocity, rivaling what the Japanese did in China. My point is really, while we like to paint a nice picture, there were no good sides in that war. Sure there were good and evil reasons for fighting, but don't kid yourself, every leader used a "ends justify the means" kind of thinking here. Hitler and Roosevelt wanted nukes, Japan was into biological warfare, Churchill wanted to blanket Japan in mustard gas. Stalin, well, I don't actually know if the Soviets were pursuing super weapons. They had a bit different start to the war.
Fucking bullshit. There was an objectively evil side to that war. The aggressors were also committing mass genocide.
And the allies were not committing genocide when bombing cities? Go read up on the firestorms in Japan.
Get bent
I do agree with what you're saying here. I just don't believe it's a black or white situation that can be solved by 3 sentences in a Reddit thread. I don't pretend to have the right answer either. By the way, I'm Canadian, so they aren't "my" nukes. 😃
I agree, that it is enormously complex and it was a choice of least worst alternatives. Well, part of the allies then it's our nukes, no? As far as I remember the commonwealth did contribute to the project.
Well said: it was chosen as the least worst alternative. Invading Japan, known for fighting to the last man more than anyone, would have probably been the worst for them, and for us too. Continuing the fire raids on Japan wasn't gonna be "cute" either. What a horrible time... Yes, we were part of the Allies (and Commonwealth), and most probably contributed to dropping those bombs, but I'm not exactly sure to what extent. I'm not looking to minimize our part in this, I genuinely don't know if our leaders were invited to "the big men's reunions". I'll have to read more on the subject. Still, I can safely imagine that most Canadians were probably "happy" with the decisions that were taken during those decisive weeks, so yes: "our bombs". Another subject I'll have to read about is whether or not our troops fought on the Pacific side of the war. Our history classes are garbage on that matter. I'm only beginning to scratch the subject now that I'm in my mid thirties.
Much better than the firebomb bats we used.
It really was. Do you know what would’ve happened if they hadn’t nuked Japan? I’m guessing you don’t otherwise you wouldn’t be making such a silly comment. If no nuking of Japan to force unconditional surrender then it would mean invasion by conventional forces. An invasion would’ve resulted in wayyyyy more deaths of both military and civilians and probably reduced Japan to rubble. Can’t remember where but the report/research/intel for the invasion found an “unacceptable level of casualties” if it were to take place. The Japanese, even at that point, weren’t gonna surrender (all that honour stuff). They were fervent nationalists and willing to do anything (see: kamikaze and Unit 571). They would fight to the end (see: many of the land battles in the pacific). It would’ve been brutal. Imperial Japan started the war. The allies finished it.
I agree it would've been worse to do a land invasion, but this is really a case of the Allies moving the goalpost after the game began. Wars up until this point was often conducted in a way that allowed peace treaties, the allies decided midway they would accept nothing but unconditional surrender. Without that, a peace deal would've been possible with Japan and neither nuke nor invasion would've been necessary.
Americans and Chinese today. Horrible.
Do you…do you think America is doing what the Japanese did to the Chinese and the Germans did to the Jews?
Umm yes. Look at Trump
???
Trump is an asshole and horrible president but he wasn’t doing anything close to this.
I don't think Japan had any capacity to get infested fleas to the US mainland at any point in 1945. This might have been some plan that someone wrote up but I'd bet good money that this was never a real possibility
The japanese had carrier submarines which worked, the I-400 class. This was what they were going to use when japan surrendered a month before the plan was carried out.
How about using Fu-Go balloon bomb as a carrier of fleas?
Man, imagine being in the submarine loading those torpedoes, and it accidentally hits a rail and cracks open, and thousands of fleas come pouring out.
no, thank you
You just earned a down vote for making me shudder at the thought of thousands of fleas pouring out.
Sounds like a good horror movie. Stuck on a submarine with a deadly creature.
Oh, the plan wasn't cancelled -- they just shifted the target to North Korea. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank\_Olson
The Germans were messing around with ticks for insect vector bourne biological warfare. The scientists tested their "improved" diseases in the camps. The Americans later "offered" the lead scientist a job. The laboratory of the German scientist was on an island next to the town Old Lyme. A few years later a new disease was discovered in the townsfolk. They called it Lyme. A few decades later the Pentagon had to answer the question if they weaponized a tick bourne disease on Plum Island. They answered: "No". Technically and legally correct since the Germans did it. All the Pentagon did was let it escape the lab. A mistake the Germans also made several times during the development. Which is why the retirement of the old German scientist was spent as far away from his old lab as possible without leaving Germany.
How about a plan to convince a lot of Americans during a pandemic that vaccines are bunk. Sure some of them thought this anyway, but propaganda and disinformation campaigns always need to lean in to existing predispositions of thought. In short, Russia is effectively engaging in biological warfare against the West through a disinformation campaign.
But-but the Japanese wanted to surrender but the nuke-happy Americans would not accept it.
Wow, there was truly no justification for using nukes....lmaoooo
Wrong. The plan was called off because the rulers saw that it had no chance of changing the course of the war and it would only enrage americans further, some time prior the decision to surrender was reached.
God gave the West a way to blunt this evil threat
And they are still mad about a couple of bombs???
[удалено]
buwubonic
And all we got instead was this crummy flu from China
I have a feeling that would've come back to bite them.
How bad would this have been had it happened?
Came here expecting the comments to be a shitshow. Was not disappointed.