A real curious user here Sup Forums, redpill me on the nukes dropped on Japan, was it really necessary? was it a war crime?
Was the bombing of Japan a war crime?
Kayden Thompson
Jason Sullivan
I really wasn't necessary, especially the second one. But boy did it send a message to the world.
They should of attacked a military base though that wasn't surrounded by civilians.
Carter Perez
yes, just like the Allied bombing of dresden.
Jackson Baker
It was nukes or land invasion. Nukes killed less soldiers and civilians than a land invasion would have. Nukes were the best choice.
Samuel Edwards
The war started when Japan took alliance with Manchu emperor who was Qing emperor before.
USA supported Chiang Kai-shek to break Manchuria.
USA didn't care USSR invading China but USA decided economic sanctions against Japan then USA called Manchu-Japan alliance as invasion.
Then which was invader? USA's puppet or Manchu emper?
Check which sas worse.
Chinese Population
populstat.info
70 million decreased after Qing-UK Opium War.
25 million decreased for Mao's Great Leap.
6 million decreased for KMT-PRC War only in 1949.
1.5 million increased per year in 1920 while civil war. Before that, 5 million per year increased so millions may have been killed by civil war.
3 million "increased" per year steadily for Japan-KMT war from 1932 to 1945. Before that, 3 million increased so same rate.
Japanese always say "We didn't kill civilian" because Japanese really didn't kill civilian.
Brayden Miller
>Check which was worse
Parker Wright
no. The bombing was done by the heros.
Jeremiah Nguyen
It's only a war crime if you lose.
Parker Foster
it wasnt justified.
the point of dropping the bombs was to intimidate the russians who were a rising super power after the war. we were the fist country to develope the A-bomb so truman decided to show the world we had the balls to use them in a post WW2 era with the US becoming the new hegemon over the world.
aside from that- the little island of japan was surrounded by the US and Russian navy. they were getting ready to surrender anyway.
in the hypothetical they went decided to stay in the fight and accept a land invasion, military intelligence at the time estimated the casualties to be somewhere in the 10 thousand range NOT 500,000 -1 million. that was a shit number thrown out to scare the public and justify the a-bomb.
Jaxson Powell
>was it really necessary?
No
>was it a war crime?
War crimes are a meme.
Jordan Phillips
Yes.
Winners determine war crimes.
Fuck this thread we've had a billion times.
Lucas Kelly
the bomb was nothing compaired to american occupation after the war
Josiah Gonzalez
I heard this kind of twist before. Oh wait, Holocaust.
>Victors decide what to write on the history books
Anyways, there's a strong Asiatic identiy and unity trending. Better buckle up for the actualization of Hirohito's Greater Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere
Liam Hughes
Patton was right we should have leveled the Ruskies when we had the chance
Zachary Fisher
Compared to the alternatives, yes. It was absolutely necessary. It was practically an act of mercy that ended the war with far lesser casualities.
While it’s true Pearl Harbor was what got the US into the war, what made them stay were the other attacks shortly afterwards, like the Invasion of the Philippines, plus had the attack failed they would have still gone to war, because that’s what happens when you get attached without direct provocation.
Don't lie to yourselves, Japan was not ready to surrender, not in the slightest, even after the first atom bomb they still refused to lay down their arms, and after the second one some of the high command STILL wanted to continue. Keep in mind that this is the same government guilty of shit like pic related.
In an idyllic world civilians should not be harmed during war, but that’s just an fringe fantasy, time and again in the history of war civilians end up paying the highest prize for the sins of their leaders, and to expect that in such a brutal and blooding war as The Second World War is just being delusional.
America was completely in the right to drop the Atom Bomb on Japan, solely for preventing further disaster like Operation Ketsu-Go or Downfall.
Michael Thompson
yes
Jeremiah Parker
It prevented Operation Downfall, the outright extinction of the Japanese people, and quite possibly a battle worse than Stalingrad. Also sometimes you've just got to prove that you're not fucking around anymore.
historylearningsite.co.uk
Dylan Brooks
What is a war crime?
It was different to mass rapes or unnecessary genocides to be sure because it helped to end war when otherwise nips would be killed in hundred of thousands if not millions.
I say it was a better choice for both americans and nips.
Dominic Diaz
Also, this
Evan Ramirez
Was it necessary? I don't think so.
Did it worked? Hell yeah, days after they surrounded.
What is on current textbooks is that Japan, even if they didn't wanted to surrender, they were alone at that moment, Germany and Italy surrounded already.
I think it became more a test than a real measure to end the war.
Anthony Taylor
the only crime was that we didnt bomb berlin and tokyo aswell.
Lucas Powell
Yes to the nukes, but especially yes to the firebombing campaign that was even worse.