70 Years Ago We Killed A Ton Of People

corgESeriously, the Japanese were monsters. Just look at what they did to China and the islands they occupied. Sad that so many civilians died, but we need to look past our revisionist history books to see the atrocities they committed, though they may try to deny that they ever happened.

Whether or not they committed atrocities, it by no means reduces or shifts the moral blame off of the US military's action of killing Japanese civilians.

What they did in that scenario was wrong, in and of itself. What we did was wrong, in and of itself. One does not negate or justify the other. The old saying "two wrongs don't make a right" isn't pulled from nowhere, it's a mark of common sense.

Monsieur_PatateSo, if I get your point, because the Japanese Military was responsible for war crimes, it's ok to nuke their population?

I disagree, but ok.



As a European, I've been part of multiple cultural exchanges during my school years with Germany, and I have multiple German friends as well, I can assess firsthand to the fact that they are well aware of the Holocaust and its history, and they've been taught about WWII in school. But I'll spare you the Google search you seem too lazy to do, look up those links:

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/06/09/world/teaching-nazi-past-to-german-youth.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/germans/germans/education.html

And from a more "popular source": https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/1a78qd/german_redditors_how_is_the_holocaust_taught_in/

"It is the single biggest thing taught in history and other subjects. We read multiple books written by survivors (think Anne Frank's diary) in German class, we visited synagogues and concentration camps and we learn all the gory details of the third Reich in history class. Multiple times in different depth."

Or you could also just ask a German, as I'm sure there are plenty on NS, I'm positive he would confirm everything that's been said.

I don't know where you've heard that, but it's just wrong man.




Well, it's the first time, so I'll take the time to answer to you, even though you obviously have some kind of mental disability.
As I said, I'm basing my argument on the work and findings of Tsuyoshi Hasegawa. ("Tsuyoshi Hasegawa is a Japanese historian, who teaches at the University of California, Santa Barbara, where he is director of the Cold War Studies program. He received his Ph.D. from University of Washington in 1969."). You can go now.

I could give you the names of literally hundreds of other PhD having proffs that believe the exact opposite. When there are conflicting theories with equal validity, as in this case, you choose the one that makes the most sense to you.

That's fine you believe a side. But don't act like it is the only explanation and is THE truth. Likely it was a combination of factors that led to dropping the bombs.

LonelyLol the usuall California grown. As someone who has been to germany, and has had a german live with me for over a year I can tell you that Germans do the exact opposite of covering things up to stay patriotic. From an early age they are taught about the horrors of the holocaust and they are also taught it was necessarily the German people but Nazi party. Here in the US you see American flags everywhere, on lawns, cars, all sorts of buildings..in Germany you would be looked down on for flying german flags and be subject to questioning because you were being too patriotic. You really never have any idea what you're talking about and just spread misinformation.

But I guess ignorance is bliss

I can tell you my grandma never had it in her curriculum when teaching and my parents never had it in theirs as students when living in Germany. I can also tell you that I knew significantly more about the holocaust and level of involvement by the average german than did any of the exchange students I've been around.

Those are my experiences. Yours may be different.

californiagrownAnd war is hell. It gets even more hellish the further back in history you go. To judge past wars based upon current peacetime ethics is an exercise in pretentiousness.

Now days we have precision weapons to target key sites while causing minimal civilian casualties. We didn't have that capability then.

You say history is written but the victors. True. Japan teaches the ending of the war one way, maybe for the same reason german kids aren't taught at all about the holocaust... To keep patriotism alive in the country.

1. No. There is no way you can say that war gets more hellish the further back in time you go. Mustard gas and melting faces were not part of the Pelopponesian War. Nor was napalm, nuclear fallout, radiation poisoning, or any other extremely horrible wartime invention of the 20th century. Secondly, we for sure can morally judge past wars since the notion of killing innocent life was also regarded as immoral as far back as human civilization can record. Doing a bad thing was bad then, just as it is now. Morality is not a peacetime invention, given that some people ignore it during wartime.

2. If you drop a nuclear bomb on a city today, you get the same effect: city gone. There is little precision when talking about nuclear weapons. We could have avoided dropping the bomb, but didn't and we'll never know the other outcome. Have weapons advanced in their precision, of course. But don't act like we dropped it just to knock out an artillery factory. We knew damn well what would happen to those cities because we tested an atomic bomb in the desert prior to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

3. Holy god you could not be more wrong about Germany. Every single German & Austrian knows about the Holocaust. It is taught in every school and is without question a huge guilt many Germans and Austrians (who were never even born or personally experienced WW2 or the Holocaust) deal with. Their nationalism is unquestionably stained and they know it. There are well known laws banning public displays of Swatztika or Nazi greetings or even saying "Heil Hitler". To say that Germans are not taught about the Holocaust makes you look 100% retarded.

californiagrownI could give you the names of literally hundreds of other PhD having proffs that believe the exact opposite. When there are conflicting theories with equal validity, as in this case, you choose the one that makes the most sense to you.

That's fine you believe a side. But don't act like it is the only explanation and is THE truth. Likely it was a combination of factors that led to dropping the bombs.


I can tell you my grandma never had it in her curriculum when teaching and my parents never had it in theirs as students when living in Germany. I can also tell you that I knew significantly more about the holocaust and level of involvement by the average german than did any of the exchange students I've been around.

Those are my experiences. Yours may be different.

But you state all of it as fact...and I would like to see the PhD a that day that

onenerdykidWhether or not they committed atrocities, it by no means reduces or shifts the moral blame off of the US military's action of killing Japanese civilians.

What they did in that scenario was wrong, in and of itself. What we did was wrong, in and of itself. One does not negate or justify the other. The old saying "two wrongs don't make a right" isn't pulled from nowhere, it's a mark of common sense.

I can understand that, but there is no way the Japanese were oblivious to what was going on. Like I said before, it sucks that it happened, but we went off of what we knew at the time. Think of the 200,000+ soldiers that died in the Pacific. Do you really think the US wanted to risk more soldiers in a land invasion? Soldiers that had families back home?

Someone stated that the Japanese were ready to surrender. However, it was conditional. They wanted to prevent occupation and keep their current government in place. They were not ready to negotiate for much else. Sure, it was a way of saving face, but the military had to be dismantled before progress could be made. And they made it clear that they were not about to relinquish control.

So, given the choice between a land invasion and dropping nuclear bombs, Truman made the difficult decision to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end the war quickly. What would you have done in his place?

There was nothing wrong with dropping the bombs. if you think otherwise you are likely some sort of smug pacifist fart sniffer who got picked last in gym class.

corgESo, given the choice between a land invasion and dropping nuclear bombs, Truman made the difficult decision to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end the war quickly. What would you have done in his place?

I would have 100% not dropped a nuclear bomb on a civilian city. Not even an option for me. What would have been a difficult decision is when to send troops to face their fate. That is, for me, a matter of ethical deliberation. Killing non-combatants is not a matter of ethical deliberation.

GTFO OP.

Our enemies wanted to have a dick size competition. We won.
Bombing those cities potentially saved hundreds of thousands of additional at risk lives by ending the war (post Germany surrender) -- Both American and non.

One could also argue that day (among other events during WW2) marked the US entry to superpower. Our capabilities keep this world in balance.

Whether you agree with it or not, war is costly, putrid, and necessary.

onenerdykidI would have 100% not dropped a nuclear bomb on a civilian city. Not even an option for me.

Well then good thing you didn't have to make the decision.

corgEI can understand that, but there is no way the Japanese were oblivious to what was going on. Like I said before, it sucks that it happened, but we went off of what we knew at the time. Think of the 200,000+ soldiers that died in the Pacific. Do you really think the US wanted to risk more soldiers in a land invasion? Soldiers that had families back home?

Someone stated that the Japanese were ready to surrender. However, it was conditional. They wanted to prevent occupation and keep their current government in place. They were not ready to negotiate for much else. Sure, it was a way of saving face, but the military had to be dismantled before progress could be made. And they made it clear that they were not about to relinquish control.

So, given the choice between a land invasion and dropping nuclear bombs, Truman made the difficult decision to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end the war quickly. What would you have done in his place?

You're so warped it's crazy. Think about the soldiers with families at home? What about the families we killed directly. We wiped out families. We torched women, children, and a ton of them. You're going to make an argument about the poor soldiers that might have died and their families? That fucking war. Soldiers die in war, it sucks but American's don't really seem that against war, and you can't have one without the other.

Soldiers die in war, that's part of it, it sucks but that's it. Civilians also die in war, but targeting large amounts of them IS NOT OKAY. If this went the other way, people would be fucking outraged. Yet we just shrug this off, "Meh no big deal. We would have lost soldiers and their families might have been sad if we didn't blow up all those civilians".

Idk, it blows my mind how easily we not only shrug this off, but justify is as the best, or even a good decision. Straight fucked. What the hell is wrong with people.

cobra_commanderThere was nothing wrong with dropping the bombs. if you think otherwise you are likely some sort of smug pacifist fart sniffer who got picked last in gym class.

What if dropping to bomb didn't stop Japan? And they continued? Then later surrended after a war of attrition? Would dropping the bomb still be justified? Because many people agree (including japan) that Stalin beat Japan and not the bomb.

RockShoxToraGTFO OP.

Our enemies wanted to have a dick size competition. We won.
Bombing those cities potentially saved hundreds of thousands of additional at risk lives by ending the war (post Germany surrender) -- Both American and non.

One could also argue that day (among other events during WW2) marked the US entry to superpower. Our capabilities keep this world in balance.

Whether you agree with it or not, war is costly, putrid, and necessary.

Yes, it's completely necessary for us to occupy pretty much every country in existence. The amount of troops we have in countries we haven't been at war with in 60+ years is ridiculous. But that's another discussion.

If one American civilian get's shot, and the perpetrator happens to be a muslim, it's terrorism and we're ready to blow up whole countries.

If we blow up two cities killing ridiculous amounts of civilians, it's totally cool and not only the best but a perfectly legitimate guilt free option.

What ever happened to perspective? We look at things so one sided. America is always right, fuck anybody else. 1 American soldier's life is worth more than 100k civilians in another country because they're weird, speak a different language, have a different culture, and therefore are inferior.

I love it.

theabortionatorYes, it's completely necessary for us to occupy pretty much every country in existence. The amount of troops we have in countries we haven't been at war with in 60+ years is ridiculous. But that's another discussion.

If one American civilian get's shot, and the perpetrator happens to be a muslim, it's terrorism and we're ready to blow up whole countries.

If we blow up two cities killing ridiculous amounts of civilians, it's totally cool and not only the best but a perfectly legitimate guilt free option.

What ever happened to perspective? We look at things so one sided. America is always right, fuck anybody else. 1 American soldier's life is worth more than 100k civilians in another country because they're weird, speak a different language, have a different culture, and therefore are inferior.

I love it.

Do you have ANY understanding how the hell allies work?
It's our presence in those countries that is literally keeping our world in equilibrium.

Now, back under the rock from whence you came.

RockShoxToraDo you have ANY understanding how the hell allies work?
It's our presence in those countries that is literally keeping our world in equilibrium.

Now, back under the rock from whence you came.

Lol, okay bro.

Team 'Murca can do no wrong.

CirilloWell then good thing you didn't have to make the decision.

Yeah, it would suck if people who made decisions on who lives or dies were actually trained in ethics and not just lawyers. Besides, if you think dropping the bombs actually made the Japanese surrender you aren't taking into consideration all of the events, i.e. Russia declaring war on Japan.

Here's another issue too. We know the power of the atomic bomb. It had been tested and we had seen how destructive it had been. We were not sure how many troops we would lose fighting japan, even though it would be a land invasion, there was no risk to U.S. soil and japan had been completely cut off from the world.not to mention Russia entering in. But instead we said eh might as well show our power to the world by killing over 200,000 a good part of witch were civilians. And the funny thing is that if japan surrendered after a lose like that, they most likely would have screened after a land invasion too? Why? There was knowledge that the U.S. had atomic bombs, there was also the knowledge that it took massive amounts of energy, money, and risk to create them. So they knew we had very very few. So if they imediatley surrendered after a loss of 200,000, do you really think they would have fought to the last man in a land invasion? No.

S.J.WWhat if dropping to bomb didn't stop Japan? And they continued? Then later surrended after a war of attrition? Would dropping the bomb still be justified? Because many people agree (including japan) that Stalin beat Japan and not the bomb.

War of attrition? build moar bombs, kill moar people, from 30,000 ft AGL
In the mean time resume firebombing population centers.
Followed up with rolling navel bombardment
followed up with moar Napalm
then send a million Soldiers and Marines to pick up the itty bitty pieces that are left, staying 1km behind a rolling arty fires( Avoiding CBRN areas)

prep the motherfucking objective

your logic is stupid. Which kid took your lunch money at school? I know someone did.
it was a total war - kill as many of them as possible in the shortest possible time while minimizing risk to blue forces.

this is AMERICA we don't no for an answer and we kill commie bastards

cobra_commanderWar of attrition? build moar bombs, kill moar people, from 30,000 ft AGL
In the mean time resume firebombing population centers.
Followed up with rolling navel bombardment
followed up with moar Napalm
then send a million Soldiers and Marines to pick up the itty bitty pieces that are left, staying 1km behind a rolling arty fires( Avoiding CBRN areas)

prep the motherfucking objective

your logic is stupid. Which kid took your lunch money at school? I know someone did.
it was a total war - kill as many of them as possible in the shortest possible time while minimizing risk to blue forces.

sick insult dude! Pretty much what you're saying is that a US life is more valuable than a Japanese life??? 2260000 inocent civilians died and you justify it and can't even look at the end of the war by any other theorys. America is pretty much the only country that teaches that the dropping of the bomb ended the war. Do your schools even teach alternative theorys??? Has anyone ever had the question "to what extent was the dropping of the bomb significant to ending ww2?" Or is just like USA USA USA, we made peace with no mention of Stalin?

cobra_commanderWar of attrition? build moar bombs, kill moar people, from 30,000 ft AGL
In the mean time resume firebombing population centers.
Followed up with rolling navel bombardment
followed up with moar Napalm
then send a million Soldiers and Marines to pick up the itty bitty pieces that are left, staying 1km behind a rolling arty fires( Avoiding CBRN areas)

prep the motherfucking objective

your logic is stupid. Which kid took your lunch money at school? I know someone did.
it was a total war - kill as many of them as possible in the shortest possible time while minimizing risk to blue forces.

I remember when I was 8 years old and the solution to every world problem was "just nuke em haha haha"

S.J.Wsick insult dude! Pretty much what you're saying is that a US life is more valuable than a Japanese life??? 2260000 inocent civilians died and you justify it and can't even look at the end of the war by any other theorys. America is pretty much the only country that teaches that the dropping of the bomb ended the war. Do your schools even teach alternative theorys??? Has anyone ever had the question "to what extent was the dropping of the bomb significant to ending ww2?" Or is just like USA USA USA, we made peace with no mention of Stalin?

Who did the japanese sign peace with.

your posts have already shown you know literally fuck all about what you talk about.

and yes. An American life is worth significantly more to me than a Japaneese life.

cobra_commanderWho did the japanese sign peace with.

your posts have already shown you know literally fuck all about what you talk about.

and yes. An American life is worth significantly more to me than a Japaneese life.

well atleast you're being honest in your good ol racist views. God Bless America! Because having no control over where you're born makes you less of a human according to you.

When you learnt about world war two did you ever learn alternative theories? In an American school do they ask you to critically think and make a judgement on just how much the bomb stopped Japan or do they just present the dropping of the bomb as fact to stopping the war.

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

At the end of the day, no one wil agree on what stopped the war. One could argue that the bomb did it, one could argue that Stalin did it, one could argue that is was a combination of both. There is no one right answer, and anyone to claim to be right is an idiot. You think dropping the bomb stopped the war cool, I think it was a combination of Stalin and the bomb, but who is to say that you are right and I am wrong, or you are wrong and I am right?

S.J.Wwell atleast you're being honest in your good ol racist views. God Bless America! Because having no control over where you're born makes you less of a human according to you.

I'm pretty sure Japanese folks value Japanese life more than American life too. I'm pretty sure Aussi's value Aussi life higher than an American life. I don't fault any of them for it.


Stoped the war or not, it gave a clear message that fucking with the US bring's bad shit to your people. You attack us? We will bomb one of your cities back to the stone age with a single bomb, and than do it again. That is pretty bad ass.

cobra_commanderI'm pretty sure Japanese folks value Japanese life more than American life too. I'm pretty sure Aussi's value Aussi life higher than an American life. I don't fault any of them for it.


Stoped the war or not, it gave a clear message that fucking with the US bring's bad shit to your people. You attack us? We will bomb one of your cities back to the stone age with a single bomb, and than do it again. That is pretty bad ass.

I'm pretty most people who have a sense of compassion and care about other people would prefer no death to war.

And killing civilians is bad ass? Was pearl habour bad ass? Was 9,11 bad ass? Your hypocricy is showing big time.

cobra_commanderI'm pretty sure Japanese folks value Japanese life more than American life too. I'm pretty sure Aussi's value Aussi life higher than an American life. I don't fault any of them for it.

This mindset is what drives wars and international conflict. Why divide ourselves just because we live on a different part of the same planet. Why doesn't one human = one human ? What makes an American life more valuable then a Japanese life and vice versa

People need to recognize how important it is to have a healthy respect for all life itself (humans, animals, nature) especially if they expect the same respect throughout their personal time on earth.

I know this is a little off the main topic but some of these comments are disgusting, it is never badass to kill innocent people.

S.J.WI'm pretty most people who have a sense of compassion and care about other people would prefer no death to war.

And killing civilians is bad ass? Was pearl habour bad ass? Was 9,11 bad ass? Your hypocricy is showing big time.

From the Japaneese perspective Pearl Harbor was bad ass. No one can deny that it was a great military operation.

difference between 911 and Nagasaki is pretty clear unless you are some pacifist fuck which we know you are.

S.J.WI'm pretty most people who have a sense of compassion and care about other people would prefer no death to war.

And killing civilians is bad ass? Was pearl habour bad ass? Was 9,11 bad ass? Your hypocricy is showing big time.

What are you talking about.

You're just grouping things together.

Also honestly pearl harbor was more of a solid military strike that was very successful not a terrorist attack.

Funny how we view that as a war crime or terrorism but us dropping the bomb was no big deal.

cobra_commanderThere was nothing wrong with dropping the bombs. if you think otherwise you are likely some sort of smug pacifist fart sniffer who got picked last in gym class.

I'm a pacifist, and I DO see the validity of what you've been saying.

That being said, killing people at all is absurd to me (especially because they were civilians.)

Killing people is wrong and we made ourselves no better than the Japanese when we killed those innocent people.

cobra_commanderFrom the Japaneese perspective Pearl Harbor was bad ass. No one can deny that it was a great military operation.

difference between 911 and Nagasaki is pretty clear unless you are some pacifist fuck which we know you are.

It's pretty funny how you think being a pacifist is an insult. Yeah fuck that guy who thinks human life is more valuable than war and the egos of world leaders. War creates more war. A peace deal like the Iran deal doesn't. And that's why I'll always be a pacifist. Not one human life should be taken if there are other ways to peace.

S.J.WIt's pretty funny how you think being a pacifist is an insult. Yeah fuck that guy who thinks human life is more valuable than war and the egos of world leaders. War creates more war. A peace deal like the Iran deal doesn't. And that's why I'll always be a pacifist. Not one human life should be taken if there are other ways to peace.

Being a pacifist doesn't relinquish you of the responsibility to read a 9th grade history book before you open your mouth.

theabortionatorWork on your trolling game for next time. Better yet, ditch the alias, and maybe just ditch the internet in general.

what alias abortionator? go abort yourself, with a coat hanger and take your ideas with you

Happynomadwhat alias abortionator? go abort yourself, with a coat hanger and take your ideas with you

Um, the one you're on. And once again, as far as trolling, you aren't good at it so either do better or sell your computer to someone who can.

theabortionatorLol, okay bro.

Team 'Murca can do no wrong.

cobra_commanderA few years ago I was afforded the opportunity to visit the Arizona Memorial. There were some Japaneses tourists there who were laughing as they took photos of themselves. I reminded them that this shit resulted in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They shut the fuck up.

Fucking. Savage.

all that rustling...

BUMP.

My advisor held a symposium this week about the anniversary of the atomic bomb deployment on Japan. He invited scientists, both hard and social, as well as the public to listen to the talks and partake in a discussion about the legacy of the bombs. The talks were pretty diverse, ranging from new historical analysis, reports on the effects of radiation in humans (because the bombs were the largest exposure in history), and discussion about nuclear security, nonproliferation, and safety.

I wasn't able to attend, but I heard about it in group meeting. If anyone is interested, a transcript of the event should be available soon. I think the talks were also filmed. Feel free to PM me if you'd like a copy.

One of the speakers was Jay Davis, an incredibly well-decorated scientist and a key player in many of the United States' nuclear security operations. At a dinner, he told one of the graduate students in my group a story about his time in Iraq. The Americans were given access to some Iraqi compound to 'look' for nuclear materials - it was unclear from the story whether they were merely looking around or were allowed to have radiation detection equipment. Regardless, there was some door to which their guide claimed there was no key. Undeterred, Jay - a large, bearded man - showed up the next day with an ax. He told the guide that if he did not find the key, he was going to chop the door down (probably in a way that threatened the guide as well). Of course, the guide readily produced the key and the Americans were allowed in.

Below are some of the things I found interesting from our discussion in group meeting. All of these are just musings from that conversation. I'm not looking to argue any of these points - this was just academic discussion, and most of these points are not my own, just what the other graduate students and my professor found particularly poignant.

- We obscure reality by assigning a number or a word to it. You can reduce a massive, significant thing to just a couple 2D characters on a piece of paper. That skews our perception of what those words/numbers stand for and mean. We (as humans) aren't wired to be able to internalize the concept of "one million" or "one hundred thousand" of anything, and when you can represent something so significant in such an insignificant way, it clouds its meaning.

- Truman and Churchill almost certainly had no understanding about the fundamental differences between the atom bomb and conventional bombs. To them, it was probably just 'a bigger bomb.' Remember, at that time, much of nuclear and radiation physics was still unknown (as it still is, but back then, even less was known).

- How do we (humans) make decisions? Critical thinking takes time: time to process, time to digest, to feel - the limited time available to Truman, coupled with the two points above, might be some of the more significant reasons those weapons were deployed.

- Military/civilian nuclear operations will never be fully decoupled because of plutonium. The presence of plutonium requires the government to add significant control and secrecy to any nuclear operation to protect public health (because plutonium and nuclear materials are dangerous) and for security.

- How can Americans and Japanese come together to talk about such a painful history? After the war, Japan was made modest by losing. However, America was made modest too because only in hindsight did they realize that the use of the bombs was somewhat inhumane. That regret, coupled with mutually acknowledged need for diplomacy, opened the door for warming relations between the countries after the war. The same cannot be said for many other former adversaries, namely Japan-China-Korea, among others.

- If the US hadn't used the atomic bombs against Japan, they almost certainly would have in Korea. In some ways, the deaths of the hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians has prevented the use of nuclear weapons since.

miroz- How can Americans and Japanese come together to talk about such a painful history? After the war, Japan was made modest by losing. However, America was made modest too because only in hindsight did they realize that the use of the bombs was somewhat inhumane. That regret, coupled with mutually acknowledged need for diplomacy, opened the door for warming relations between the countries after the war. The same cannot be said for many other former adversaries, namely Japan-China-Korea, among others.

Idk. It really doesn't seem like we've ever acknowledged any wrong doing. At best be somewhat lament having to use such force, but we seem to push the fact that it was a necessary evil, and given the chance would do it again.

I don't think we took responsibility for our actions, and I don't think we really learned much of a lesson.

Our side of history still says "Woohoo! We killed those fucks, they deserved it. Yea! America and eagles and stuff!"

AlsoKnownAsIdk. It really doesn't seem like we've ever acknowledged any wrong doing. At best be somewhat lament having to use such force, but we seem to push the fact that it was a necessary evil, and given the chance would do it again.

I don't think we took responsibility for our actions, and I don't think we really learned much of a lesson.

Our side of history still says "Woohoo! We killed those fucks, they deserved it. Yea! America and eagles and stuff!"

Perhaps America as a whole no, but the leaders maybe. And there was a time when much of the public was greatly upset about dropping the bombs.

Probably much of the "fuck yeah!" that we know is from the association of that with winning the war in both theaters. Like I said, words distort reality. When you label that period of history as "WWII" it becomes difficult to look at that era through any different lens. As the generation of Americans who didn't live through that time but were taught about it, it's just convenient to lump it all under the sentimental umbrella of "we won!" rather than parse and understand separately feelings about the events.

That's just my speculation, I don't know. And like I said, the above stuff was just academic musings haha, we (my group) might be thoughtful but we're not historians.

ya can argue pacifist pussy moralities all ya want
but when ya fuck up attack and declare war on a more formidable enemy
once ya shake up and open the can of whoop ass
expect the entire can to be emptied

SFBv420.0ya can argue pacifist pussy moralities all ya want
but when ya fuck up attack and declare war on a more formidable enemy
once ya shake up and open the can of whoop ass
expect the entire can to be emptied

Which when applied to militant combatants, that's fair. Get all macho on the bad guy, no problem. But, normal citizens (who are non-combatants) should not be the target of a military strike. It's not their fault that the leaders of their country are idiots and want to wage war. So why punish them? Just as it is the same for our cities and our mothers, fathers, children who are not part of their bullshit- nuclear strikes on civilian cities have no part in a war. When innocent civilians are killed because world leaders don't have their shit together, we call that an atrocity. It's not a new, modern word pulled out of nowhere.

onenerdykidWhich when applied to militant combatants, that's fair. Get all macho on the bad guy, no problem. But, normal citizens (who are non-combatants) should not be the target of a military strike. It's not their fault that the leaders of their country are idiots and want to wage war. So why punish them? Just as it is the same for our cities and our mothers, fathers, children who are not part of their bullshit- nuclear strikes on civilian cities have no part in a war. When innocent civilians are killed because world leaders don't have their shit together, we call that an atrocity. It's not a new, modern word pulled out of nowhere.

I feel like what many people forget is that this was not the only time areas with citizens were targeted by both Allies and Nazi forces. Dresden, London, Chongqing, Warsaw, Moscow, etc. were all bombed numerous times to destroy "infrastructure" and other wartime efforts. Was it right? Hell no, but it was done by both sides.

dec 7th 1947 was a watershed moment for the Japanese people
unfortunately they decide to whip it out n piss on the wrong dog
once havoc is cried and the leashes come off
bad shits gonna happen
such is war
https://www.newschoolers.com/videos/watch/785663/Pink-Floyd---The-Dogs-of-War--with-lyrics-

Okay, so I missed this when it first came around, but it has made me shake my head a lot while reading through it.

I was lucky enough to be in Hiroshima this August and visit the Peace Park. Notice how it is called the "Peace Park". The Japanese created a monument that has absolutely no bias, no blame at all linked to it. They have dedicated the area as a place to contemplate the horrific effects of war and how peace is always the best option. What saddens me is that the victims of the bombing are the ones who are not trying to assign blame or fault, but are looking at the undeniable fact that many innocent people were killed along with soldiers, both Japanese and American, that were innocent before the war started, while on here and in much of the US a bunch of kids are automatically conditioned to blame one side and actually have the audacity to declare that "they" deserved what happened to them. The primary responses on this thread were not considering how horrible it may have been and they did not consider that there may have been alternative, they just said "they deserved it".

As to where I stand on the issue regarding whether nuclear force was necessary, I will stand without a doubt in the range that it was nothing but a military "flex" and the immeasurable civilian suffering played little role in the decision of Japan to surrender. If you would like sources, please read this article and consider reading the material that is mentioned throughout it. http://www.nytimes.com/1995/07/30/books/did-we-need-to-drop-it.html?pagewanted=all

.MASSHOLE.I feel like what many people forget is that this was not the only time areas with citizens were targeted by both Allies and Nazi forces. Dresden, London, Chongqing, Warsaw, Moscow, etc. were all bombed numerous times to destroy "infrastructure" and other wartime efforts. Was it right? Hell no, but it was done by both sides.

Very true, and like you note still wrong. I think Hiroshima and Nagasaki were pretty next level though and this is why they are put at the top of the list.

SFBv420.0dec 7th 1947 was a watershed moment for the Japanese people
unfortunately they decide to whip it out n piss on the wrong dog
once havoc is cried and the leashes come off
bad shits gonna happen
such is war

So we can do whatever we want in the name of war? So instead of dropping bombs and simply killing innocent people, we could instead rape the women and sell the children into slavery? If there are no rules, then we can do whatever we want to them and this would be permissible in your opinion?

This thread is a limp boner.

For your viewing pleasure, here are some classic Ron Swanson quotes from Parks and Rec:
http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0144619/quotes

More people were killed during the fire bombing of tokyo then either atomic bomb.
Obviously it would have been nice if the U.S. didn't do any of that, but we did. Then we made up with Japan and they got a much better deal then a lot of eastern european countries.

cobra_commanderThere was nothing wrong with dropping the bombs. if you think otherwise you are likely some sort of smug pacifist fart sniffer who got picked last in gym class.

You seem like the type of person that, if those bombs were dropped on NYC or LA, would be crying about it like a little bitch.

Granite_StateYou seem like the type of person that, if those bombs were dropped on NYC or LA, would be crying about it like a little bitch.

No,
I'd be one of the people on an airplane to go commit tomahawk facerape on whatever is left of those responsible after we take their country off the face of the earth.

I'd be pissed, but doubt there would be any tears.

cobra_commandertomahawk facerape

that just made it into my top 5 favorite phrases.



Here is a University of Notre Dame History Professor's take on the bombings...


https://www.newschoolers.com/videos/watch/785928/Was-it-Wrong-to-Drop-the-Atom-Bomb-on-Japan-

I just found the website for my professor's symposium. Feel free to check it out and read the abstracts:

http://berkeleynuclearsymposium.weebly.com

californiagrownHere is a University of Notre Dame History Professor's take on the bombings...

Regarding the video you posted: he may be a history professor, but (a) he seems to be selling something, as that video was not for Notre Dame but for some other university (a for-profit, perhaps?), and (b) he listed no sources, basically only reciting the typical high school US history canon. Both his view and that which he tries to discredit (that the US dropped the bombs to flex muscles at the USSR) have been accused of hindsight bias (by historian Michael Gordin of Princeton). More information about that is discussed in the abstracts. Note that I haven't read into it too much, just wanted to post a different take.