First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next  Last
Post Reply Does Japan have the right to complain about America's Atmoic bomb droppings?
18767 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M / London
Online
Posted 4/13/15 , edited 4/13/15
I mean sure, the atomic bombs devastated Japan, however does that give the right to complain about war crimes when the Imperial Army had also caused Atrocious war crimes? Such as the invasion of Asian countries and countless Civilians being killed and Women being raped? Was it necessary to stop them and was the "right thing to do", if it was indeed the "right thing" can they really complain?
49109 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 4/13/15 , edited 4/18/15
Atmoic bomb?I don't think anybody has ever used one.
60101 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
55 / M
Offline
Posted 4/13/15
If you think the Japanese are complaining about ww2 then you should watch "Grave of the Fireflies". what does the line in it mean "Why didn't you just apoligize?" oh yea make sure you have some tissues when you watch it.
5005 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M
Offline
Posted 4/13/15 , edited 4/18/15
The use of atomic weapons was the fastest way to end the war, and the best outcome for Japan. The US was preparing a massive invasion of the mainland from the south, while the USSR was going to strike from the north. The US was preparing for well over a million casualties in the event of a full scale invasion, on their side alone, let alone the USSR, and the Japanese themselves. Plus with a joint US-USSR invasion we would have had a similar outcome to what happened in Germany split into East and West, and in Korea by North and South. While yes atomic/nuclear/thermonuclear weapons cause mass devastation, and leave the survivors sickened by radiation, it still by far the best way to end the war. It limited casualties to roughly 100,000(civilians, though the targets were industrial centers, not civilian population centers) and prevented the further spread of the Stalin era Communist ideology. Also it showed the world just how terrifying nukes are, and may well have prevented the cold war from going hot.
27254 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 4/13/15 , edited 4/13/15
No country should be complaining about stuff that happened like 4 generations ago, IMO, especially since they attacked one another and it wasn't exactly a one-way slaughter. That's what war is. Getting stuck in the past and carrying nationwide resentment and grudges are a great way to never make and progress and get into even more wars. The war is over and has been, and that's that. It's not like the people in power now were in power back then. It would be like having two kids apologize to one another for things their grandparents did as kids. It makes no real sense to me.

Posted 4/13/15 , edited 4/13/15
Of course they have the right to complain. Is what they did wrong too? Sure. Can those other people complain about Japan? Of course. They needed to be stopped. We didn't care about their lives and only wanted to save our own and save costs. Was it right to just blast them instead of invading them? Doesn't matter at this point. It's been done and over with for a long time. It was a war and shit happens during wars.
26420 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 4/13/15 , edited 4/17/15
Japan has spent the last 70 years forgetting what they had done, yet proclaiming how they were victims.. Germany faced her history and now enjoys good relations with her neighbors. How do Japan's neighbors view it?

Germany's PM Merkel was just in Japan and she mentioned that Japan need to confront their wartime conduct, as Germany did.

What will Abe say on the upcoming 70th anniversary of Japan's surrender? Don't expect anything much. Some believe he might even try to backtrack from the famous Prime Minister Murayama's near apology of 1995.

Posted 4/13/15 , edited 4/14/15
Sure why not?
America keeps complaining of 9/11, even after 10+ years, let Japan complain of the atomic bombs.
9140 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
52 / M / Madison, Wi
Offline
Posted 4/13/15
here is the one thing i heard from a former Army Officer for Japan . He said this. "If we had the bomb, we would have use it."
8701 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Definitely not EU
Offline
Posted 4/13/15 , edited 4/14/15

inf1ltrat0rN7 wrote:

The use of atomic weapons was the fastest way to end the war, and the best outcome for Japan. The US was preparing a massive invasion of the mainland from the south, while the USSR was going to strike from the north. The US was preparing for well over a million casualties in the event of a full scale invasion, on their side alone, let alone the USSR, and the Japanese themselves. Plus with a joint US-USSR invasion we would have had a similar outcome to what happened in Germany split into East and West, and in Korea by North and South. While yes atomic/nuclear/thermonuclear weapons cause mass devastation, and leave the survivors sickened by radiation, it still by far the best way to end the war. It limited casualties to roughly 100,000(civilians, though the targets were industrial centers, not civilian population centers) and prevented the further spread of the Stalin era Communist ideology. Also it showed the world just how terrifying nukes are, and may well have prevented the cold war from going hot.


Let me take a quote I posted a while back, because you are wrong.


DanteVSTheWorld
It was unnecessary to drop atomic bombs to end WWII. Generals including Dwight Eisenhower and Douglas MacArthur, and a lot more people who were in the military then, believed that Japan would've surrendered eventually without dropping atomic bombs. Eisenhower believed atomic bombs were not the answer and refused to support the idea of killing civilians.

Japan having no navy, no air force, getting beaten by the Chinese, and their people starving, Japan was essentially defeated by 1945.

In fact, what ended WWII was the Soviet Union's declaration of war on Japan followed by the subsequent Soviet invasion of Manchuria. Looking back, historians now believe that Japan surrendered specifically on August 15th due to the Soviet intervention. By that date all hope in Manchuria was lost and Japan faced a potential Soviet invasion. The Soviet intervention had a much more profound effect than the atomic bombings (Japan introduced martial law after the Soviets declared war). If the US sat back and did nothing Japan would've still surrendered on August 15th.

The atomic bombs did nothing but kill 250,000 people, of which 20,000 of them were Koreans and 3,200 of them were Japanese Americans. The fact that 3,200 Americans were killed by the atomic bombings compared to 2,300 Americans killed at Pearl Harbour, means that the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed more American citizens than the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour did.
The decision to use atomic bombs was a total disregard for human life. Lets not forget both bombs were designed differently, probably to see what effects it would of caused, and they were timed to detonate at just the right altitude for maximum damage. The US Government being the terrorists they are just wanted to test the bombs. It is an absolute joke that there are actually people who believe the atomic bombs saved lives.

Lets not even talk about if Nazi Germany happened to use a Nuke against the US, they would of all been hanged for war crimes.


Japan has every right to complain, just because the imperialists done bad things, that don't mean you drop a nuke killing civilians? Like what kind of fucking logic is that.
45489 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M
Offline
Posted 4/13/15 , edited 4/13/15

justanotherguy_2005 wrote:

Of course they have the right to complain. Is what they did wrong too? Sure. Can those other people complain about Japan? Of course. They needed to be stopped. We didn't care about their lives and only wanted to save our own and save costs. Was it right to just blast them instead of invading them? Doesn't matter at this point. It's been done and over with for a long time. It was a war and shit happens during wars.


All in all, more Japanese probably survived the bomb than they would have if a full scale invasion was held. Plus, bombs weren't just dropped without warning. Fliers warning civilians to evacuate the cities were dropped first.

Not that I condone it, but, ultimately, it's time we moved on. Not just Japan, but America as well. It's pointless condemning the children and grandchildren of those in the war for the actions of their fathers and grandfathers. Hatred just breeds hatred.

As an aside, I've visited the Nagasaki Peace Park in Nagasaki, Japan. The people there weren't hateful of Americans that I saw. Somber? Sure. But not hateful or angry towards Americans.
18767 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M / London
Online
Posted 4/13/15 , edited 4/13/15

DanteVSTheWorld wrote:


inf1ltrat0rN7 wrote:

The use of atomic weapons was the fastest way to end the war, and the best outcome for Japan. The US was preparing a massive invasion of the mainland from the south, while the USSR was going to strike from the north. The US was preparing for well over a million casualties in the event of a full scale invasion, on their side alone, let alone the USSR, and the Japanese themselves. Plus with a joint US-USSR invasion we would have had a similar outcome to what happened in Germany split into East and West, and in Korea by North and South. While yes atomic/nuclear/thermonuclear weapons cause mass devastation, and leave the survivors sickened by radiation, it still by far the best way to end the war. It limited casualties to roughly 100,000(civilians, though the targets were industrial centers, not civilian population centers) and prevented the further spread of the Stalin era Communist ideology. Also it showed the world just how terrifying nukes are, and may well have prevented the cold war from going hot.


Let me take a quote I posted a while back, because you are wrong.


DanteVSTheWorld
It was unnecessary to drop atomic bombs to end WWII. Generals including Dwight Eisenhower and Douglas MacArthur, and a lot more people who were in the military then, believed that Japan would've surrendered eventually without dropping atomic bombs. Eisenhower believed atomic bombs were not the answer and refused to support the idea of killing civilians.

Japan having no navy, no air force, getting beaten by the Chinese, and their people starving, Japan was essentially defeated by 1945.

In fact, what ended WWII was the Soviet Union's declaration of war on Japan followed by the subsequent Soviet invasion of Manchuria. Looking back, historians now believe that Japan surrendered specifically on August 15th due to the Soviet intervention. By that date all hope in Manchuria was lost and Japan faced a potential Soviet invasion. The Soviet intervention had a much more profound effect than the atomic bombings (Japan introduced martial law after the Soviets declared war). If the US sat back and did nothing Japan would've still surrendered on August 15th.

The atomic bombs did nothing but kill 250,000 people, of which 20,000 of them were Koreans and 3,200 of them were Japanese Americans. The fact that 3,200 Americans were killed by the atomic bombings compared to 2,300 Americans killed at Pearl Harbour, means that the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed more American citizens than the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour did.
The decision to use atomic bombs was a total disregard for human life. Lets not forget both bombs were designed differently, probably to see what effects it would of caused, and they were timed to detonate at just the right altitude for maximum damage. The US Government being the terrorists they are just wanted to test the bombs. It is an absolute joke that there are actually people who believe the atomic bombs saved lives.

Lets not even talk about if Nazi Germany happened to use a Nuke against the US, they would of all been hanged for war crimes.


Japan has every right to complain, just because the imperialists done bad things, that don't mean you drop a nuke killing civilians? Like what kind of fucking logic is that.


The imperialists also killed civilians.

8701 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Definitely not EU
Offline
Posted 4/13/15 , edited 4/13/15

tridragon1 wrote:


DanteVSTheWorld wrote:


inf1ltrat0rN7 wrote:

The use of atomic weapons was the fastest way to end the war, and the best outcome for Japan. The US was preparing a massive invasion of the mainland from the south, while the USSR was going to strike from the north. The US was preparing for well over a million casualties in the event of a full scale invasion, on their side alone, let alone the USSR, and the Japanese themselves. Plus with a joint US-USSR invasion we would have had a similar outcome to what happened in Germany split into East and West, and in Korea by North and South. While yes atomic/nuclear/thermonuclear weapons cause mass devastation, and leave the survivors sickened by radiation, it still by far the best way to end the war. It limited casualties to roughly 100,000(civilians, though the targets were industrial centers, not civilian population centers) and prevented the further spread of the Stalin era Communist ideology. Also it showed the world just how terrifying nukes are, and may well have prevented the cold war from going hot.


Let me take a quote I posted a while back, because you are wrong.


DanteVSTheWorld
It was unnecessary to drop atomic bombs to end WWII. Generals including Dwight Eisenhower and Douglas MacArthur, and a lot more people who were in the military then, believed that Japan would've surrendered eventually without dropping atomic bombs. Eisenhower believed atomic bombs were not the answer and refused to support the idea of killing civilians.

Japan having no navy, no air force, getting beaten by the Chinese, and their people starving, Japan was essentially defeated by 1945.

In fact, what ended WWII was the Soviet Union's declaration of war on Japan followed by the subsequent Soviet invasion of Manchuria. Looking back, historians now believe that Japan surrendered specifically on August 15th due to the Soviet intervention. By that date all hope in Manchuria was lost and Japan faced a potential Soviet invasion. The Soviet intervention had a much more profound effect than the atomic bombings (Japan introduced martial law after the Soviets declared war). If the US sat back and did nothing Japan would've still surrendered on August 15th.

The atomic bombs did nothing but kill 250,000 people, of which 20,000 of them were Koreans and 3,200 of them were Japanese Americans. The fact that 3,200 Americans were killed by the atomic bombings compared to 2,300 Americans killed at Pearl Harbour, means that the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed more American citizens than the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour did.
The decision to use atomic bombs was a total disregard for human life. Lets not forget both bombs were designed differently, probably to see what effects it would of caused, and they were timed to detonate at just the right altitude for maximum damage. The US Government being the terrorists they are just wanted to test the bombs. It is an absolute joke that there are actually people who believe the atomic bombs saved lives.

Lets not even talk about if Nazi Germany happened to use a Nuke against the US, they would of all been hanged for war crimes.


Japan has every right to complain, just because the imperialists done bad things, that don't mean you drop a nuke killing civilians? Like what kind of fucking logic is that.


The imperialists also killed civilians.



Yeah I know, what's your point?
49909 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / So Cal
Offline
Posted 4/13/15

inf1ltrat0rN7 wrote:

The use of atomic weapons was the fastest way to end the war, and the best outcome for Japan. The US was preparing a massive invasion of the mainland from the south, while the USSR was going to strike from the north. The US was preparing for well over a million casualties in the event of a full scale invasion, on their side alone, let alone the USSR, and the Japanese themselves. Plus with a joint US-USSR invasion we would have had a similar outcome to what happened in Germany split into East and West, and in Korea by North and South. While yes atomic/nuclear/thermonuclear weapons cause mass devastation, and leave the survivors sickened by radiation, it still by far the best way to end the war. It limited casualties to roughly 100,000(civilians, though the targets were industrial centers, not civilian population centers) and prevented the further spread of the Stalin era Communist ideology. Also it showed the world just how terrifying nukes are, and may well have prevented the cold war from going hot.


90,000–166,000 killed in Hiroshima
39,000–80,000 killed in Nagasaki
Total: 129,000–246,000+ killed

But, your point still stands, aside from speculation on the Russians reign and what not.

The casualties would have been insane, not just combatants but the continued torture, rape and massacres being conducted by the Japanese at the time. They had proven at every almost opportunity that they would die to the last man and here are some numbers to prove it;

19,500 and 50,000 Japanese surrenders in ww2, with 2,620,000
to 3,120,000 total deaths.

They needed a shock to break their zealot mentality, but even that didn't work, so they gave them a second one. Just about every man, woman and child in Japan was willing to die for their emperor up until that point. There should be no question in anyone's mind whether or not the bombings were necessary or whether we should apologize. It was the most humane thing to do, for Japan, for the US and Russia and for most of Asia, especially China.
8701 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Definitely not EU
Offline
Posted 4/13/15 , edited 4/14/15

BearSol wrote:


inf1ltrat0rN7 wrote:

The use of atomic weapons was the fastest way to end the war, and the best outcome for Japan. The US was preparing a massive invasion of the mainland from the south, while the USSR was going to strike from the north. The US was preparing for well over a million casualties in the event of a full scale invasion, on their side alone, let alone the USSR, and the Japanese themselves. Plus with a joint US-USSR invasion we would have had a similar outcome to what happened in Germany split into East and West, and in Korea by North and South. While yes atomic/nuclear/thermonuclear weapons cause mass devastation, and leave the survivors sickened by radiation, it still by far the best way to end the war. It limited casualties to roughly 100,000(civilians, though the targets were industrial centers, not civilian population centers) and prevented the further spread of the Stalin era Communist ideology. Also it showed the world just how terrifying nukes are, and may well have prevented the cold war from going hot.


90,000–166,000 killed in Hiroshima
39,000–80,000 killed in Nagasaki
Total: 129,000–246,000+ killed

But, your point still stands, aside from speculation on the Russians reign and what not.

The casualties would have been insane, not just combatants but the continued torture, rape and massacres being conducted by the Japanese at the time. They had proven at every almost opportunity that they would die to the last man and here are some numbers to prove it;

19,500 and 50,000 Japanese surrenders in ww2, with 2,620,000
to 3,120,000 total deaths.

They needed a shock to break their zealot mentality, but even that didn't work, so they gave them a second one. Just about every man, woman and child in Japan was willing to die for their emperor up until that point. There should be no question in anyone's mind whether or not the bombings were necessary or whether we should apologize. It was the most humane thing to do, for Japan, for the US and Russia and for most of Asia, especially China.


That is all speculation. You can't say 'this would of happened and that would of happened'. If you read my post you would see Japan surrendered the moment Russia become a real threat to them. They didn't surrender because of the nukes, if that was the case they would of surrendered on the day of the second nuke but they didn't, it was 2 weeks later because of the Russians. Only people that think it was justified have it in their minds that 'oh this and that would of happened' lmao.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.