ITTWD Pearl Harbor, Hiroshima, Rape of Nanking, Agent Orange, and harsh language

[Howard Alan Treesong]

FUCK YOU POST HERE

[Kestastrophe]

FUCK YOU POST NEAR

[Olivia Wilde Homo]

I didn't create the thread but if anyone gets a genius idea to post pictures of Agent Orange babies, put that shit in spoilers, please.

[MyNameIsMethodis]

America gets a undeserving bad rep for the nuke attacks that Japan received.

[patrickula]

Yes, because America is really the country that came out of World War II looking bad 

[TakingBackSunday]

America gets a undeserving bad rep for the nuke attacks that Japan received.

...

dude, the atomic bomb killed more than 200 thousand people.  What the fuck

[TVC15]

America gets a undeserving bad rep for the nuke attacks that Japan received.

...

dude, the atomic bomb killed more than 200 thousand people.  What the fuck

And the Japanese didn't even need a nuclear bomb to kill that many people (likely even more) at Nanking alone!

[Olivia Wilde Homo]

If America invaded Japan by land, the final result would be a meat grinder like situation.  I can understand why someone would want to use a nuke to spare their own people's lives at the expense of the enemy's.  Hindsight is 20/20.  Personally I thought the firebombing attacks were fairly sufficient, which crippled Japan.  Nukes were a tad over the top and a second one was unnecessary.

If the US spent a lot of resources in Japan, there also would have been a good chance that Korea would have been entirely Red.

[Phoenix Dark]

The atomic bombs were not a crime. Comparing them to the Holocaust or Russian slaughters is idiotic

Where's Boogie

[TVC15]

omg didnt know that many Americanos lived in Nanking, the more you learn!

What does the people of Nanking not being Americans have anyuthing to do with the wholesale slaughter of civilians?  Just pointing out that the Japanese did singular acts that were even worse than the A-bomb.  Japan killed like 10 millionish people in SE Asia in WWII.

[Rman]

I'm not a big history buff, so forgive my ignorance.  Does anyone know why the US chose to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki specifically?  Were there big military bases in those cities?

[Eel O'Brian]

i hope this is the right thread

[TVC15]

I'm not a big history buff, so forgive my ignorance.  Does anyone know why the US chose to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki specifically?  Were there big military bases in those cities?

One had a military base of some sort and the other was a manufacturing city or something.  There were reasons they were picked but I forget the details.

[Howard Alan Treesong]

I'm not a big history buff, so forgive my ignorance.  Does anyone know why the US chose to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki specifically?  Were there big military bases in those cities?

One had a military base of some sort and the other was a manufacturing city or something.  There were reasons they were picked but I forget the details.

I also know that Kyoto was a target but was specifically vetoed on the belief that the Japanese people could never recover culturally from losing Kyoto's history

[Himu]

I would say the A-bombs helped save more lives than killed them. As for comparing Nanking/Russians/Holocaust to the fucking A-Bomb, well...you're just an idiot.

[Don Flamenco]

First bomb - efficient way to end the war, in retrospect it was horrible and questionable, but it probably would have served its purpose on its own. BUT...

Second bomb - the result of one of the bigger miscommunications in history. Happened because the press all over the world took the Emperor's silence on the matter as a claim that Japan wouldn't surrender and there may or may not have been intelligence to corroborate that.  Nobody knew because they were still trying to figure out what the hell happened in Hiroshima.   It probably wasn't necessary.


fun fact: The fire bombing of Tokyo claimed more lives than either Hiroshima or Nagasaki (though not combined...I don't think.) While the a-bombs are debatable, people cite the Tokyo fire bombing as a true war crime the U.S. never had to respond to.

moral of the story: WWII was sum fukked up shit man.

[TVC15]

I'm not a big history buff, so forgive my ignorance.  Does anyone know why the US chose to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki specifically?  Were there big military bases in those cities?

One had a military base of some sort and the other was a manufacturing city or something.  There were reasons they were picked but I forget the details.

I also know that Kyoto was a target but was specifically vetoed on the belief that the Japanese people could never recover culturally from losing Kyoto's history

Really?  I had never heard that.  Would Kyoto have had any military bases or strategic targets?  Was Kyoto the capital then?

I would say the A-bombs helped save more lives than killed them. As for comparing Nanking/Russians/Holocaust to the fucking A-Bomb, well...you're just an idiot.

Why?  So much of the argument of the anti-A-bomb people is that so many civilians were killed and it was an atrocity.

[Howard Alan Treesong]

yeah, Tokyo was more decimated than even Hiroshima, and with more deaths

the Japanese even have a special word to describe Tokyo after the war, yakenogahara

I've always liked Dave Barry's explanation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - that the U.S. dropped the bomb on Hiroshima because it was believed that only a display of such overwhelming force and terror would convince the fiercely imperialistic Japanese people to capitulate, and dropped the bomb on Nagasaki because hey, we had another bomb.

[Howard Alan Treesong]

I'm not a big history buff, so forgive my ignorance.  Does anyone know why the US chose to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki specifically?  Were there big military bases in those cities?

One had a military base of some sort and the other was a manufacturing city or something.  There were reasons they were picked but I forget the details.

I also know that Kyoto was a target but was specifically vetoed on the belief that the Japanese people could never recover culturally from losing Kyoto's history

Really?  I had never heard that.  Would Kyoto have had any military bases or strategic targets?  Was Kyoto the capital then?

Tokyo was the capital and thus the target of all the firebombing.

http://www.dannen.com/decision/targets.html

Kyoto - This target is an urban industrial area with a population of 1,000,000. It is the former capital of Japan and many people and industries are now being moved there as other areas are being destroyed. From the psychological point of view there is the advantage that Kyoto is an intellectual center for Japan and the people there are more apt to appreciate the significance of such a weapon as the gadget. (Classified as an AA Target)

7. Psychological Factors in Target Selection

A. It was agreed that psychological factors in the target selection were of great importance. Two aspects of this are (1) obtaining the greatest psychological effect against Japan and (2) making the initial use sufficiently spectacular for the importance of the weapon to be internationally recognized when publicity on it is released.

B. In this respect Kyoto has the advantage of the people being more highly intelligent and hence better able to appreciate the significance of the weapon. Hiroshima has the advantage of being such a size and with possible focussing from nearby mountains that a large fraction of the city may be destroyed. The Emperor's palace in Tokyo has a greater fame than any other target but is of least strategic value.

http://www.theenolagay.com/study.html

GROVES, STIMSON, AND THE SAVING OF KYOTO     

Kyoto, the top choice of Major General Groves' Target Committee, was never bombed. On May 30, 1945, Groves met Secretary of War Stimson, who asked for the target list. Stimson vetoed Kyoto because it "was he ancient capital of Japan, a historical city, and one that was of great religious significance to the Japanese." He had visited the city several times and was "very much impressed by its ancient culture." Stimson was concerned that the destroying Kyoto would permanently embitter the Japanese against the United States and increase Soviet influence in Japan. Groves argued that Kyoto had a population of over a million, did much war work and had a highly suitable geography for the bomb. He fought for two months to reinstate the city to the target list, but to no avail. In July the port city of Nagasaki was added instead.

[Himu]

Why?  So much of the argument of the anti-A-bomb people is that so many civilians were killed and it was an atrocity.

How many died from the A-bomb compared to the raping of Nanking/Holocaust?

[TVC15]

Why?  So much of the argument of the anti-A-bomb people is that so many civilians were killed and it was an atrocity.

How many died from the A-bomb compared to the raping of Nanking/Holocaust?

Again, depends on whose textbooks you read.  The Japanese estimates top out at 200k and everywhere else in the world says it's higher.

I forgot how bad Nanking was.  This reads like some fiction I'd write:

The International Military Tribunal for the Far East stated that 80,000 women were raped, including infants and the elderly.[23] A large number of them were systematized in a process where soldiers would search door-to-door for young girls, with many women taken captive and gang raped.[24] The women were often then killed immediately after the rape, often through mutilation, including breasts being cut off;[25] or stabbing by bamboo (usually very long sticks)[26], bayonet, butcher's knife[citation needed] and other objects into the vagina. There are also claims of Japanese troops forcing families to commit acts of incest.[27] It has been claimed that sons were forced to rape their mothers, fathers were forced to rape daughters. One pregnant woman who it is claimed was gang-raped by Japanese soldiers gave birth only a few hours later; the baby was perfectly healthy (Robert B. Edgerton, Warriors of the Rising Sun). Monks who had declared a life of celibacy were according to some claims forced to rape women.

[Don Flamenco]

Why?  So much of the argument of the anti-A-bomb people is that so many civilians were killed and it was an atrocity.

How many died from the A-bomb compared to the raping of Nanking/Holocaust?

About 150,000 died in Hiroshima + Nagasaki combined.  200,000 in Nanjing.  but the aftermath of the A-bombs was a hell of a lot worse and longer lasting.  On the other hand, the aftermath of Nanjing was horrible too.  Throw in the Tokyo firebombing and that puts it up to 250,000 under the U.S. belt for those 3 attacks. 

But where the hell does quantifying lives get us?  Nowhere...I think we can all agree that the methods the Nazis and Japanese used sound much worse on paper, but that the U.S.' methods were despicable as well. 

Nobody came out of WWII clean, but I guess the point is that letting the Axis win would've left the world in a worse situation.

[Howard Alan Treesong]

sounds like something the dukku would dream up

[Himu]

Suffering is fucking suffering Himuro. Jesus Christ.

War is the definition of suffering though. Comparing the acts of a-bomb to the holocaust just seems extreme to me. But yes, nobody came out of WWII clean. But with the A-bomb, I can at least see a reason why they would do such a thing, not that I think it's right.

[Phoenix Dark]

The thing is that without the atomic bombs the firebombing would have been ramped up, not to mention a full scale invasion. 300,000 is generous compared to the potential devastation of that.

Stalin ordered the invasion of Japan shortly the first bomb dropped; as has been discussed, Russia had plans on carving the country up by any means necessary.

One of Japan's surrendering terms was a demand for no occupation, which the US obviously would have refused. Japan refused to respond to the Potsdam Declaration, hence the second bomb. When you look at Japanese/Imperial history it becomes clear that surrender wasn't likely

[TVC15]

Suffering is fucking suffering Himuro. Jesus Christ.

War is the definition of suffering though. Comparing the acts of a-bomb to the holocaust just seems extreme to me. But yes, nobody came out of WWII clean. But with the A-bomb, I can at least see a reason why they would do such a thing, not that I think it's right.

As I said above, Himu, the comparison is only made because one of the prime arguments of the anti-A-bomb people is how many civilians it killed.  I agree that it's something of a fallacious comparison.

[Himu]

The thing is that without the atomic bombs the firebombing would have been ramped up, not to mention a full scale invasion. 300,000 is generous compared to the potential devastation of that.

Exactly.

Suffering is fucking suffering Himuro. Jesus Christ.

War is the definition of suffering though. Comparing the acts of a-bomb to the holocaust just seems extreme to me. But yes, nobody came out of WWII clean. But with the A-bomb, I can at least see a reason why they would do such a thing, not that I think it's right.

As I said above, Himu, the comparison is only made because one of the prime arguments of the anti-A-bomb people is how many civilians it killed.  I agree that it's something of a fallacious comparison.

The amount of civilians killed was a travesty, I agree.

[Howard Alan Treesong]

Suffering is fucking suffering Himuro. Jesus Christ.

War is the definition of suffering though. Comparing the acts of a-bomb to the holocaust just seems extreme to me. But yes, nobody came out of WWII clean. But with the A-bomb, I can at least see a reason why they would do such a thing, not that I think it's right.

probably one of the most harrowing things I've ever seen was at the A-bomb museum in Hiroshima, they had a special exhibit of drawings and writings done by A-bomb survivors. there is just something eternally unnerving about a poorly drawn crayon picture of melting faces

[Himu]

Suffering is fucking suffering Himuro. Jesus Christ.

War is the definition of suffering though. Comparing the acts of a-bomb to the holocaust just seems extreme to me. But yes, nobody came out of WWII clean. But with the A-bomb, I can at least see a reason why they would do such a thing, not that I think it's right.

probably one of the most harrowing things I've ever seen was at the A-bomb museum in Hiroshima, they had a special exhibit of drawings and writings done by A-bomb survivors. there is just something eternally unnerving about a poorly drawn crayon picture of melting faces

Ugh.

You hear that story about that little girl who made like 1000 pieces of origami and she believed if she made enough she'd get better and ended up dying? The day we read that story it pretty much ruined my day.

[Don Flamenco]

One of Japan's surrendering terms was a demand for no occupation, which the US obviously would have refused. Japan refused to respond to the Potsdam Declaration, hence the second bomb. When you look at Japanese/Imperial history it becomes clear that surrender wasn't likely

There was no outright refusal, just silence.  Was it unrelenting silence?  or was Japan scrambling to figure out what the hell happened in Hiroshima so they could make an informed decision?   Nobody knows.

[Phoenix Dark]

One of Japan's surrendering terms was a demand for no occupation, which the US obviously would have refused. Japan refused to respond to the Potsdam Declaration, hence the second bomb. When you look at Japanese/Imperial history it becomes clear that surrender wasn't likely

There was no outright refusal, just silence.  Was it unrelenting silence?  or was Japan scrambling to figure out what the hell happened in Hiroshima so they could make an informed decision?   Nobody knows.

I'd call it a rejection considering they refused to accept part of the terms (removal of the emperor)

[Howard Alan Treesong]

Suffering is fucking suffering Himuro. Jesus Christ.

War is the definition of suffering though. Comparing the acts of a-bomb to the holocaust just seems extreme to me. But yes, nobody came out of WWII clean. But with the A-bomb, I can at least see a reason why they would do such a thing, not that I think it's right.

probably one of the most harrowing things I've ever seen was at the A-bomb museum in Hiroshima, they had a special exhibit of drawings and writings done by A-bomb survivors. there is just something eternally unnerving about a poorly drawn crayon picture of melting faces

Ugh.

You hear that story about that little girl who made like 1000 pieces of origami and she believed if she made enough she'd get better and ended up dying? The day we read that story it pretty much ruined my day.

dude, I was in Hiroshima on August 6th. I went to the dome and I ran my fingers over the cranes. don't talk to me about having your day ruined.

[Himu]

Suffering is fucking suffering Himuro. Jesus Christ.

War is the definition of suffering though. Comparing the acts of a-bomb to the holocaust just seems extreme to me. But yes, nobody came out of WWII clean. But with the A-bomb, I can at least see a reason why they would do such a thing, not that I think it's right.

probably one of the most harrowing things I've ever seen was at the A-bomb museum in Hiroshima, they had a special exhibit of drawings and writings done by A-bomb survivors. there is just something eternally unnerving about a poorly drawn crayon picture of melting faces

Ugh.

You hear that story about that little girl who made like 1000 pieces of origami and she believed if she made enough she'd get better and ended up dying? The day we read that story it pretty much ruined my day.

dude, I was in Hiroshima on August 6th. I went to the dome and I ran my fingers over the cranes. don't talk to me about having your day ruined.

 :'( :'( :'(

[Don Flamenco]

One of Japan's surrendering terms was a demand for no occupation, which the US obviously would have refused. Japan refused to respond to the Potsdam Declaration, hence the second bomb. When you look at Japanese/Imperial history it becomes clear that surrender wasn't likely

There was no outright refusal, just silence.  Was it unrelenting silence?  or was Japan scrambling to figure out what the hell happened in Hiroshima so they could make an informed decision?   Nobody knows.

I'd call it a rejection considering they refused to accept part of the terms (removal of the emperor)

fair enough, but it's not a settled matter by any means and we'll never know for sure what happened. They didn't refuse, they just didn't act.  It's not the same thing.  It's arguable that the Japanese media took it upon itself to interpret the silence as refusal, which didn't help.  Also, "prompt and utter destruction" may not have translated to "we're gonna drop another one of those things on you in a couple days" to them, so they didn't act immediately. 

[MrAngryFace]

I will say this to the fuck morans on this board- The A-Bomb was the best move in a bad situation for Americans. Invading Japan would have been a bloodbath. I will add, however, that a population does not 'deserve' the devastation and suffering delivered by the A-Bomb. Not appreciating the true severity of its use just leads to the improper use of nuclear weapons in the future.

[Howard Alan Treesong]

dude, I was in Hiroshima on August 6th. I went to the dome and I ran my fingers over the cranes. don't talk to me about having your day ruined.

now that I stop to think about it, the people who had the A-bomb dropped on them probably had a worse day

[MrAngryFace]

NAH! CUZ THEY "INVADED" PEARL HARBOR :rolleyes

[Howard Alan Treesong]

yeah but then Michael Bay turned it into a movie starring Ben Affleck

where he took the train from California to Pearl Harbor

which is the real atrocity, MAF???

[MrAngryFace]

Its a shame our generation is so removed from the use of the A-Bomb that we have no appreciation for the horrors that it inflicted

[Himu]

Oh God, don't remind me of that movie

[MrAngryFace]

It has Kate Beckinsale iirc winnnnnnnnnn

[Himu]

I liked the romance story in Peal Harbor

[Howard Alan Treesong]

if you had to stand before St. Peter and you had to be responsible for

A) Pearl Harbor the attack
B) Pearl Harbor the movie

which would you pick?

Honestly, I might go with the attack. While the results were worse, the justification was also a lot better.

[Cheebs]

Honestly, is there ANY credible American historians who would say the bombings of Japan weren't necessary? I'd be shocked if there is even a single one.

[Himu]

if you had to stand before St. Peter and you had to be responsible for

A) Pearl Harbor the attack
B) Pearl Harbor the movie

which would you pick?

Honestly, I might go with the attack. While the results were worse, the justification was also a lot better.

the attack

[Howard Alan Treesong]

[Eel O'Brian]

would killing ben affleck balance out the karma hit

[Cheebs]

eh, ben affleck directed Gone Baby Gone which was pretty good.

[Howard Alan Treesong]

would killing ben affleck balance out the karma hit

Me: I am responsible for the deaths of 200,000 people.
* St. Peter frowns.
Me: brb
* Me kills Ben Affleck.
Me: 200,001.
St. Peter: Good jon, go on in.

[TVC15]

eh, ben affleck directed Gone Baby Gone which was pretty good.

You mean pretty awesome.  Also, Casey Affleck is fuck awesome.  He had better start getting lots of work between Gone Baby Gone and the Assassination of Jesse James.

[Tieno]

What's wrong with Ben Affleck? Whenever I see him in interviews he comes off as a nice enjoyable guy. Direct your hatecock on more deserving celebrities.

[Howard Alan Treesong]

Casey Affleck rules but we're talking about Ben

[Cheebs]

eh, ben affleck directed Gone Baby Gone which was pretty good.

You mean pretty awesome.  Also, Casey Affleck is fuck awesome.  He had better start getting lots of work between Gone Baby Gone and the Assassination of Jesse James.

Yes, I agree totally. GBG was one of my favorite movies the year it came out. Casey is a great actor. I even liked him in those Ocean movies. I hope he breaks out soon, he deserves it.

[Himu]

is ben affleck the guy who puts his nuts on people's shoulders? or am I thinking of the wrong actor?

[Cheebs]

is ben affleck the guy who puts his nuts on people's shoulders? or am I thinking of the wrong actor?

Yeah that's Affleck.

[TVC15]

So we derailed the Life pictures thread by talking about the nukes, and we derailed the nukes thread by talking about the Affleck family.

[Himu]

I'd nuke Affleck's balls if he put them on my shoulder.

[Cheebs]

I'd nuke Affleck's balls if he put them on my shoulder.

You wouldn't be turned on by seeing this face dangling his balls on you?

[Oblivion]

Honestly, is there ANY credible American historians who would say the bombings of Japan weren't necessary? I'd be shocked if there is even a single one.

Quite a few contend that it wasn't really necessary since Japan was running low on their military resources, and the U.S. already took out most of their big cities and bases.


As for my thoughts, let's just say I think they all deserved it, and leave it at that.

[drew]

I didn't create the thread but if anyone gets a genius idea to post pictures of Agent Orange babies, put that shit in spoilers, please.

*googles*

 

spoiler (click to show/hide)

literally lol

[close]