"Anti-American" or "Un-American" is also something that annoys me. Just by pointing out that we did something maybe bad, maybe that we're not inherently "the good guys", isn't showing hate towards America.
@Hulk Yes, Japan has a different culture. Also, it's preemptive strike. Bush Doctrine type stuff. You have reason to hurt me, so I'll hurt you bad enough first that you stop thinking about hurting me, or no longer have the capability to.
They weren't an axis power there was the Molotov Von Ribbentrop accord which was a non aggression pact with Poland as the victim of the combined aggression. The axis were Germany Italy and Japan with other minor partners such as Romania Bulgaria and Finland.
No he is only showing things america did that are bad insighting a negative view to people who don't know history
Anyways back to the topic. I think that where you live and your views on the actions will result in different answers. Both may be right however... One culture may fine it wrong, one may find it right. Both are right viewpoints depending on your life. From a historians viewpoint, or a view from a neutral party. It can be viewed in two different ways. Were the cost of 140,000 lives and the abiity to live off a land mass being lost worth saving another million soldiers lives? You be the judge. BUT! How can we prove that another million lives were to have been lost?
Thought this was about hiroshima noob. Instead you bring in other wars and battles. Instead of avoiding my topic you are bringing in other battles to try and deter my pro nuke choice
Historical continuity isn't really avoiding the topic. More like drawing in other similar instances to strengthen the argument.
And you're only saying good things about America, insighting people who don't know history that we're the best and don't do wrong, which is also harmful. Come to think of it, maybe that's what happened to you.
To quote winston churchill on the subject of the use of nuclear weapons The final decision now lay in the main with President Truman, who had the weapon; but I never doubted what it would be, nor have I ever doubted since that he was right. The historic fact remains, and must be judged in the after-time, that the decision whether or not to use the atomic bomb to compel the surrender of Japan was never even an issue. There was unanimous, automatic, unquestioned agreement around our table; nor did I ever hear the slightest suggestion that we should do otherwise. From his book Triumph and Tragedy. It was Truman's choice he always insisted it had been his choice though his reasoning was occasionally altered over the following years.
That was based on casualties suffered by us forces taking Okinawa Iwo Jima and other islands. The us military suffered more casualties in 1944 in the pacific than all the years before combined. The expectation was that the invasion of the home islands would have been a costly and protracted fight in difficult circumstances. As an aside over 500,000 Purple Hearts were made in preparation for the invasion of Japan those medals are still used today they've not needed to have any made since 1945 over 120,000 are still in stock. Also the invasion of Japan would have seen British and Russian troops fighting in the invasion.
So if a country puts a huge fleet then someone has the right to bomb it? Americans trained chinese rebels maybe cuz japanese were massacring chinese ppl in china? Placed oil embargo uh? So u wanted the japanese govmt to receive awards for waging war on the world?
Placing a embargo limiting it to 10% of what it was getting will general Y cause a warr when they are trying to fight one. Also newspapers were saying we might get attacked that week must of been a huge surprise. The news team must be better then the army with Intel.
Salty sadly there was limited concern for civilian casualties during WW2 carpet bombing cities had become accepted following the blitz and the air wars in Europe and against Japan. In Europe it was pointed to as an example of allied assistance to the Russians prior to the landings in Northern Europe and Italy. It tied down thousands of German planes and air defence units tens of thousands of men. In Japan it was use of firebombs mixed with explosives which resulted in the annihilation of vast areas of Japanese cities. Those raids killed and destroyed more than either of the two nuclear weapons used.
Stalin and the red army had agreed to assist the U.S against the Japanese, by invading Manchuria and spreading the Japanese forces thinly over two fronts. They were due to declare war on August 15. Truman had seen the Russian land grab in Europe after the German defeat, and didn't want them to spread this to the east. It was then a race for the war to end, so that Russia did not enter this conflict. The U.S dropped a weapon that killed indescriminately so as to force the Japanese surrender. The worlds largest and most devastating act of terrorism against civilians was no more than a politically motivated act.
Has anyone brought up the fact that this anniversary also means it has been 70 years since nuclear weapons have been used on a civilian population? A small pat on the back for humanity?
Fair enough...but at least it shows that we are capable of some sort of restraint. We should celebrate the small victories. In fact, I will make it a personal statement to visit Hitoshima on the 100th anniversary...providing nothing happens in the next few decades.