Don´t want to derail this thread too much, but this does have to do with with American bombing. With what you´ve stated, would you consider the "non declared war" massive aggression on Vietnam "state sponsored terrorism" on a scale never seen before. Especially in light of the farse of the Gulf of Tonkin incident. And what about the bombing of Cambodia and Laos? Definitely non declared, plus done illegally behind congress´ back, killing millions. Would you consider this "terrorism" in your math?
Hiroshima
- Thread starter R.N7
- Start date
I watched film footage of the POW camps, and it defies belief that humans can treat other humans in this way. But I still can't bring myself to believe that either of the atomic bombs were justified. Otherwise, where does it end?
I guess was a conflict for UK and war for Argentina
If one starts counting individual actions and attributing it to all the nations, then the sport of killing innocents for fun was started by bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945.
It's older than that and the Americans didn't invented it.
It wasn't. I'll say again, you need to learn your history. There were a dozen battles in World War Two alone with more deaths. That's before even getting into the millions of lives saved by the decision to drop the bombs.
It's fecking genocide, same with the Dresden bombings. There were no need to drop the bombs on the two cities. Flatten a couple of mountains as a warning sign and the outcome would be the same.
You wanted payback for Pearl Harbour, simple as. Don't try to whitewash it.
Yes, it is always about going to wars for imaginary reasons and killing common people as a preventive measure. You definitely need to re-learn the distorted history.
Honestly, do either of you have the first clue about the pacific theater? Do you have any clue how many people would have died in a full scale invasion of the Japanese homeland?
Are you serious? I've literally answered it three times in this thread already.
Do you know what genocide is ? And you are talking about a city who was inhabited by +40000 Japanese soldiers, without that bombing the two countries could have been still fighting today (I'm exaggerating a bit).
When the british army bombed Frankfort there you can say that it's scandalous they only targeted civilians.
Why should it be a choice between killing, maiming and crippling nearly a million people, most of them innocent civilians and full scale land invasion? By all means, drop the bombs, but used it as an ultimatum. The sight of the destruction and mushroom cloud would have the Japs surrender anyway. It's a false choice.
Estimates for American dead alone range from 200,000 to 4,000,000. For Japanese dead we are talking millions upon millions.
And how many "would not" have died if there was no invasion of Japanese homeland?
Again I have to ask, are you serious? The Japanese (japs isn't the preferred nomenclature dude) didn't surrender after the bombing of Hiroshima.
There was even an attempted coup attempt to prevent the emperor from surrendering. Due respect, you have no idea what you are talking about.
Sorry, I don't buy that argument. As I said, drop the bombs if you want to, but only as a threat, choose a rural area for example, the Japanese werent crazy enough to keep fighting in the wake of such destruction. There were no need to kill that many people to make a fecking point. I believe that the decision is part motivated by vengeance, part ending the war and part flaunting weaponry supremacy to the USSR
I'm sorry I missed something, are you pretending that Japan were victims? It was a freakishly strong nation who decided to invade half of the world.
What are you suggesting happen in the final stages of world war two? After an incredibly deadly island hopping campaign the US just says "eh, forget it, I've got stuff to do at home" and turns around leaving a regime that killed tens of millions throughout asia and did medical experimentations of living humans in place?
Yes they were. Every single piece of evidence proves this.
Because most threads in the current events forum are for criticizing america.
Why has this gone onto Hiroshima? Nation states have participated in killing and maiming for as long as they have existed.
We are talking about the specific issue here of western involvement in the middle east.
We are talking about the specific issue here of western involvement in the middle east.
You should stop, they really don't know what happened in the Pacific.
And you bought into the official version too readily, but anyway, let's say you are right, let's say even if after the bombs were dropped as a warning sign, the hardcore nationalists didn't surrender, why should a land invasion be necessary? No fly zone, naval blockade and regular bombings and you would have them on their knees within the year. There would still be civilian casualties but nowhere as high as Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
He has a point and your poor attempt at humour doesn't change that. Most CE threads are taken off topic by the same band of people intent on turning the discussion into 'the West is bad' no matter what the subject is.Poor Eboue
Regular bombings such as the firebombing of tokyo, which killed more people than the atomic bombs?
I'm sure has little to do with the same people spinning truth to fit their agenda as well
Oh really, stop it.Poor Eboue
If you want to debate, then debate. If you want to post shitty gifs, feck off to the 50k thread.
Why when there's a conspiracy against the U S of A - they can't possibly be guilty of anything wrong
In fairness, at least Eboue is engaging in a lively debate instead of posting rubbish gifs.
We lost our shit after Pearl Harbour? A direct act of war by the military forces of one nation against those of another's? Where we respond appropriately by declaring war? I suppose you take a dim view of England and France's reaction to the German's in WW2? Or even Russia's?
Honestly that has to be the dumbest comment on here in a long time.
The allies decided that this time the aggressor states (Germany and Japan) should unconditionally surrender, in order to prevent political schemes that happened after the first WW. It was definitely the right decision.
If you consider that until 1949 people died in Japan from starvation, throwing the nukes was easily the best possible decision. 200k+ people died, but an invasion would have easily killed much more (if you consider that Hiroshima ana Nagasaki combined number of victims is less than in some other cities from conventional bombing) from invasion alone, and then a few other millions would have died from starvation, diarrhea, infected water and other illnesses. That is without counting the number of American soldiers who would have died in the war.
Ultimatelly, if US wasn't going to finish the war (or even deciding to not invade but doing a blockade), USSR wasn't going to do so. They had just defeated with ease the elite army of Japan in Manchuria. They were going to invade, and at worst case it would have been a three party war.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a neccesary evil. Every other option would have ended with far more victims.
Eboue agreed earlier that the west have made things worse with some of their actions. Somebody sidetracked the thread about Hiroshima, and Eboue used facts to dispute their argument. Not really sure what he's done wrong here.
Can we get this thread back on topic please?
lol somebody needs to study world war 2 a bit more.
If you're so unsure you should probably go back and read. It would have saved this exchange. Unless you're being deliberately facetious of course in which case nothing could have saved it, you'd still have done it.
Railways, dams, power plants, who said anything about targeting civilians?
It was not until the USSR declared war on Japan that they surrendered. Many scholars argued that was the deciding factor.
I am infinitely bored of you taking this thread off-topic. There is a Hiroshima thread you know.
Without going into more academic sources, a quick look at Wiki would tell you there are plenty who opposed the bombings.
You can disagree with me, it's fine, but you don't have a monopoly on the truth.
Edit: anyway, I'll hold my peace from now, it's clear I won't get people to agree that flattening entire cities with mostly civilians is a humongous crime
Actually the civilian casualties from regular bombing, the effects of blockade (starvation, lack of medical supplies, etc) , allowing the Japanese to continue killing civilians in occupied areas , could easily have exceeded the deaths in the 2 A-bomb attacks.
The U.S. strategic bombing campaign did not really begin until mid-1944 ending in Aug 1945. In that time excluding the two A bombs civilian deaths still hit at least 450k probably higher. This doesn't include deaths caused by the effect of disruption of shipping both to and within Japan and the effect of the disruption of the production and distribution of food within Japan. So another year of war could have easily led to more civilian deaths (including Chinese, Koreans, etc in occupied areas) then the two Abombs.