who cares, they are just japanese. (1 Viewer)

[writer'sblock]

its soo sad ..... its something the western media hardly touches on because it will give us bad light.... the west sympathies so much on the holocaust as if it was the worst thing to happen in history.... IMO this is equally worse.

just thinking about it disgusts me... I mean to what level do you have to stoop to drop a nuclear warhead on such a populated city. So many innocents losing their lives... it's absolutely mind boggling that they didn't even hesitate before doing it. but thats for another day.

RIP for all those died.

edit: my second paragraph was out of ignorance. lol

Hitler killed 6 million jews, Eisenhower killed 400,000 in the blasts and after; a) it stopped a bloody land battle, endangering countless more civilians with artilery and shelling. b)it swiftly ended the war, and c) it had never been done before - the Americans only assumed it would take out the T bridge, the park, and the 2 barracks.
It wasn't a sophisicated bomb, or for that matter a warhead on a missile. it was a lump of uranium(IV) with a Plutonium hammer. It had no accuracy as it was dropped several of kilometres about the city in cloud cover.
Furthermore, there was 6 months of hesitation. the holocaust is different since it was systematic genocide of races, political beliefs, sexualities et cetera.
The media rarely reffers to the holocaust, and for good reason - Same for the Hiroshima and Nagasaki events.
Why not say Stalin, a defeater of Hitler was great? - he once was told "200,000 women and children died whilst digging the cannal yesterday" he responded with " but did they finish it?" They is there never any Stalin bashing? - there's no need.
Moreover, this matter has some ethics to argue with logic and rationality would conculde that the bombings were the best thing to happen, it created the respect for human life that we see today - wars no longer break out between world powers. the impacts of the horrid events have benifited society and the international community greater than immaginable. Just because we were the victors doesn't mean we wrote this section of history biasedly without ill-reason.


I edited my statitical error... sorry

 

[writer'sblock]

Yes it was.


Just not as well known compared to say the western front in the ETO.

The Sino-Japanese War started in 1894 and finished in 1895 - Learn the names of Wars!
Yes, Japan was at war with China in 1937, but that is still considered to be apart of the greater lead up to the WWII.
WWII is quoted as 1939-45 since it is when most of the world's alliance's started comming into play and global war provoted.

 

[writer'sblock]

Nah, it's just America picking on the little guys.

Consider how many wars there has been in the 19th century compared to post WII.
France, Britan, Prussia (Germany), Russia, Austria-Hungary, Spain, America, ad Italy, and the Ottoman Empire were always active.
every since the UN was set up withthe security council, there has been a sharp decline in warfare worldwide, along with WTOs and global companies trade has helped maintained peace.

This last half of the 20th century has been reletivly peaceful - not too many wars in Europe apart from the Balkans and Eastern Europe, or In America..., or Asia...

 

[Graney]

.

Thanks for the modern history notes man.

 

[Aryanbeauty]

They should have bombed Tokyo, so as to cause maximum casualty.

 

[chicky_pie]

The Japanese was as crazy back in WWII.

When they invaded China, they use their swords to gather women who are pregnant and cut out the unborn foetus, slice them in half with their swords.


but i still buy their products

 

[HNAKXR]

you only get your war crimes held against you if you lose the war.

and honestly who of us can say we haven't had a little genocide here or rape fest there.

let he who is without sin.

 

[writer'sblock]

They should have bombed Tokyo, so as to cause maximum casualty.

And remove all hope of creating a functioning nation with out the emperor, their deity. What had happend was the better solution, for given reason. Your statement is lillogical right wing banter.

 

[Aryanbeauty]

And remove all hope of creating a functioning nation with out the emperor, their deity. What had happend was the better solution, for given reason. Your statement is lillogical right wing banter.

I'm yet to find a jap who give a damn about their emperor or not so royal family. Even Britney Spears is more popular over there.

 

[HNAKXR]

I'm yet to find a jap who give a damn about their emperor or not so royal family. Even Britney Spears is more popular over there.

Akihito's unpopularity is usually among Japs who believe they should not have apologised for their war crimes.

honestly i don't think Britney Spears is popular anywhere anymore.

 

[Iron]

Hitler killed 6 million jews, Eisenhower killed 400,000 million in the blasts and after; .

qft.

 

[jewoneimon]

i'm mostly wondering........ why not just let the japs mourn and cry about those nukes dropped on their heads and we just go about doing our own stuff?

 

[Snaykew]

its soo sad ..... its something the bigbadjames hardly touches on because it will give us bad light.... he sympathies so much on the japanese as if it was the worst thing to happen in history.... IMO this is worse.

just thinking about it disgusts me... I mean to what level do you have to stoop to massacre 10 million people from a country. So many innocents losing their lives and forced into sex slavery... it's absolutely mind boggling that they didn't even hesitate before doing it. but thats for another day.

RIP for all those died and suffered

 

[Admiral Nelson]

go walk the kokoda track now bigboy!

ill be right behind you, showering you with pellets.

p.s. no clean socks

I've done that twice, actually, and I must say, every Australian should do it at least once in their life.

That being said, the atomic bombs were entirely justified simply by the fact an invasion of Japan would have killed more Japanese than the two bombs did.

 

[sam04u]

I've done that twice, actually, and I must say, every Australian should do it at least once in their life.

That being said, the atomic bombs were entirely justified simply by the fact an invasion of Japan would have killed more Japanese than the two bombs did.

Would an invasion have made some children born with 8 fingers on one hand, or 12 toes? Till this very day?

Nuclear war is never justified. Don't be a moron.

 

[Admiral Nelson]

Would an invasion have made some children born with 8 fingers on one hand, or 12 toes? Till this very day?

Nuclear war is never justified. Don't be a moron.

Keeping it civil, I see. And I'm fairly sure that they'd prefer to have 12 toes than not existing due to their grandparents being killed by collateral damage when the American forces would had to have taken Nagasaki, wiping out the majority of the city.

And no, nuclear warefare now can't be justified due to mutually assured destruction (MAD), but could when there was no such threat. Honestly, the invasion of Japan would have killed between one and two million Japanese soldiers, and probably three or four times that many civillians. The Americans themselves expected a million casualties. What about the Americans who survived as a result? and their ancestors who wouldn't otherwise be here.

Remember, the duty of the Americans was and is first and foremost to it's own soldiers and population, as is any nation's.

 

[Snaykew]

It would've made less children being born due to the near extinction of the Japanese people.

 

[sam04u]

Keeping it civil, I see. And I'm fairly sure that they'd prefer to have 12 toes than not existing due to their grandparents being killed by collateral damage when the American forces would had to have taken Nagasaki, wiping out the majority of the city.

That's assuming you could say with absolute certainty that they would not have surrendered, or that they would have lost. Regardless though, for many generations their children will continue to suffer the effects of radiation. America set a dangerous precedent.

And no, nuclear warefare now can't be justified due to mutually assured destruction (MAD),

That's ridiculous though. Anything can be justified in the minds of some. I mean imagine you're a tribal leader, and you and a rival tribe have fought for centuries. One day you managed to kill all their men and boys, and all that was left was women, and many young children.

You know that when these children grow, they will avenge their forefathers, and as a result more people will die in the future. Would that be a justification to slaughter the children? Ofcourse it wouldn't.

but could when there was no such threat. Honestly, the invasion of Japan would have killed between one and two million Japanese soldiers, and probably three or four times that many civillians. The Americans themselves expected a million casualties. What about the Americans who survived as a result? and their ancestors who wouldn't otherwise be here.

You have no way of accurately knowing. Hirohito had lost any semblance of support, the Japanese may very well have disregarded the orders and surrendered.

Remember, the duty of the Americans was and is first and foremost to it's own soldiers and population, as is any nation's.

That's what Colonial Britain thought, and Rome, and now the United States of America. That's a pretty shit role to play.

One World, buddy.

 

[Alvik]

I had no idea about the anniversary

Stupid sexy olympics

 

[Snaykew]

You have no way of accurately knowing. Hirohito had lost any semblance of support, the Japanese may very well have disregarded the orders and surrendered.

The nuclear weapon was a shock weapon to be honest. It played a major role in getting the Japanese to surrender because of the pure awe of it. Please remember that this was the first time such a weapon was used or even known.

Although I don't think the second bomb was necessary. The Japanese just needed some time for the first one to sink in. The population was ready to fight you know. For honour and all that jazz. Not to mention all the Japanese were killing themselves before the Americans could even talk to them on the outlying islands. Japanese propaganda and ideaology were pretty fierce with their own people.

What would you prefer, the possibility of an extinct Japanese people or a guaranteed quick surrender?