Popular Opinion thread!
History is boring.
Hitler wasn't a very nice guy.
It's in the past. It's all irrelevant now!
the ottoman sultanate was the continuation of the byzantine empire which was a continuation of the roman empire
modern turkey is the new roman republic!
t.mahmood
Abraham Lincoln did nothing wrong, or
Abraham Lincoln was a tyrant who oppressed innocent Southerners who dindu nuffin
Depending on where in the US you live.
Gaius Julius Caesar was the greatest leader of all time
The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were horrible vile acts of inhumanity.
We're in a clash of civilization! They only understand violence! Liberal democreeeEEEEEEEEEEEEE
>>494071
>implying they weren't
>>494086
Found the weeb.
>>494090
Found the American
Humans have only discovered how to live meaningful lives in the last 50 years.
Fascism has more in common with Communism than capitalist democracy.
>>494094
American and proud.
>bombing the chinese with gas and bioweapons is fine
>nukes are too far
>not to mention the firebombings killed more than the nukes did
>>494101
>not to mention the firebombings killed more than the nukes did
Well the firebombings were a pretty terrible thing to do as well so I'm not sure how that helps your argument.
>>494108
Japan had the misfortune of forgetting the old adage: start shit, get hit.
>>494101
>is confronted with the terrible things his country did in the past
>"Yeah dude, that was awesome xD America is best :DD"
Typical American.
>>494130
The bombings weren't horrible. What would have been horrible was sending GI's into a meatgrinder when you have an option that will end the war without wasting their lives. A leader has responsibility to his people, first and foremost. Putting the lives of people you are not responsible for before the lives of people under your care is immoral.
>>494148
>wholesale industrialised slaughter of innocent civilians of in one of the most agonising and terrifying ways imaginable is worse than allowing trained soldiers to do their job
>>494155
It is worse. Putting the lives of others before the lives of your own men is tantamount to treason.
>>494148
>killing between 129000 and 246000 people (mostly civilians) isn't horrible.
Also, your argument is retarded. A life is not worth more simply because the person it belongs to is under your responsiblity.
>>494172
>A life is not worth more simply because the person it belongs to is under your responsiblity.
It is to the person in charge. From a neutral standpoint both lives are equal. From the perspective of the belligerents, the lives of their own are worth more than the lives of the other, regardless of belligerent status.
>>494155
>fucking japs
>innocent civilians
>>494184
When you have the possibility to save lives it is your moral duty to save them. No matter who they are or on which side they fight.
>>494191
What about the fact that more civilians would have died in a prolonged land invasion of Japan. Do you WANT more Japanese to die? Do Japanese deaths make you happy you sick fuck?
Napoleon was a bad guy
>>494191
Not when invading will more than likely result in the same civilians killed anyway, only now you also have your own men killed.
>>494172
>>494155
Fact: Japan and US were at war
The atom bomb was being researched by multiple, opposing countries
Conventional manned warfare- especially with Japan- is costly and deadly
No country was innocent
The atom bomb will be used
Considering these facts, I feel that the US's atomic bombings were the best, realistic outcomes in that scenario.
>>494196
Oh God, give me a break. Americans always bring this argument up. You honestly have no way of telling how long the war would have gone on or how many casualities there would have been. And neither had the people who were in charge (aka the Americans) at the time.
The Japan bombings are not (morally) justifiable, just stop.
>>494212
What, are you a fucker that wants Japanese moms to jump off cliffs? What an asshole man, do you WANT child soldiers to die, and for young Americans to die in beaches? What a horrible horrible person.
>>494222
TRIPS
R
U
T
H
The Jews have been unfairly and unjustly oppressed everywhere they go!
>>494212
>You honestly have no way of telling how long the war would have gone on or how many casualities there would have been. And neither had the people who were in charge (aka the Americans) at the time.
You could use that same argument to say the bombings saved many lives.
Might is right.
>>494233
You really couldn't with the knowledge at the time. And even if the people in charge acted out of the intention to save lives, one cannot decide the fates of thousands of people based on a guess
>>494101
>b-but other people did bad things too!
>>494245
It wasn't a random guess. The battle of Okinawa provided a projection on what kind of resistance an invasion would face, which was ironically what the Japanese were aiming for.
>>494245
Man fuck you and your horrible line of thinking, WANTING Japanese towns to get besieged, and women, men, and children to commit ritual suicide/attack Americans, and WANTING Americans to charge into defenses to die. You're such a fucking jerk you know that? You wish more people could have died.
>>494275
I don't WANT it to be a historical fact that Americans and Japanese were forced to die in a brutal land war in Japan, but that seems like a more appeasing future to you, you sick fuck.
>>494283
Alright, just keep insulting me until you convinced yourself that I'm wrong.
>>494275
>It wasn't a random guess but it was a guess still
More like a very accurate projection. Perhaps even worse, given how Okinawans showed less zeal than Home Island Japanese.
>>494209
>Considering these facts, I feel that the US's atomic bombings were the best, realistic outcomes in that scenario.
What if they dropped the bomb on a very unpopulated area and followed that up with an intense leaflet-dropping campaign saying "We don't want to, but we will if you force us"?
Assuming that worked (and I'm aware that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were like a week apart) wouldn't that have been better still?
>>494212
but the best calculations at that time estimated massive American casualties, and the Japanese empire would never surrender unless a massive show of force occurred. The bombing were horrific but justifiable considering the circumstance.
>>494296
We dropped leaflets over every city we bombed. You think after watching Tokyo go up in flames, they would have fled into the countryside.
>>494302
>We dropped leaflets over every city we bombed.
Well, yes - that's why the idea occurs to me. The bomb presented such a quantum leap in efficiency of destructive force, though, that I think a case can be made that just demonstrating its existence might have been enough, IF expediting Japanese surrender was the sole goal.
I don't feel certain of that, but at first glance it seems reasonable.
Maybe everybody stop telling each other to consider various things and just converse?
>>494316
>I think a case can be made that just demonstrating its existence might have been enough,
Considering it took another bomb, I'd say it wasn't.
>>494319
Maybe you did. Maybe the Japanese though you were bluffing. That's why that anon suggested nuking an unpopulated area first.
Also, address my original point in that post
>>494334
>Maybe the Japanese though you were bluffing.
At that point in the war we had wiped multiple Japanese cities off the map. Was napalm just not scary enough?
Women are equal to men.
I'm not saying this is my opinion, just a popular one.
>>494322
>Considering it took another bomb, I'd say it wasn't.
Possibly. But suppose my idea was tried, and after a week there was no response. The second bomb is then dropped on, let's say, Hiroshima. Japan surrenders shortly afterwards. Better outcome, right?
What if, then, the second bombing was also of a very depopulated area, but much closer to a city? Followed by another leafleting campaign to the effect of "There was never just one, we have more, give it the fuck up, it's over"?
Basically, I think you've established that what actually happened was not the worst possible outcome. But I think that's a very modest claim, far more modest than the claim that it was the best possible outcome.
>>494344
Is it popular globally, would you say, or really only in the West?
>>494339
Yes, quite frankly, napalm wasn't scary enough. Hiroshima and Nagasaki ended the war *because* they were nuked (as in, with nuclear weapons).
>>494345
We only had two nukes at the time. We couldn't just use them as firework shows.
>>494349
West.
Remeber the whole debacle with the Vice feminazi going to Ukraine to see the "women's battalion" and finding out they were all just cooks and looking for husbands?
>>494364
So it's actually quite an unpopular opinion, then.
>>494108
>>494071
>firebombings are that Jap equivalent of Churchill's strategy in Europe to fuck over as many civilians as possible and break the spirit of the country by widespread suffering
>hiroshima and nagasaki were chosen specifically to minimize civilian deaths
>if the bombs weren't dropped, the eastern theater would have gone on for another decade and Japan would cease to be a sovereign state anymore
>plus more people would die vs. the number the bombs killed
>but the bombs were bad because "hurr killing people is wrong"
This is what deontologists actually believe
>>494360
But the main justification for their use is effectively that of the fireworks show, except that it's a fireworks show which necessarily kills tens of thousands of civilians.
>>494373
But the west is the most relevant and important place in the world. (^:
>>494377
This argument has been discredited throughout the thread by various people
>>494296
The atom would still be used in a seige scenario
Really though come on. Do you think there's a single race other than the Japanese who are more suited to take a nucler attack?
>>494380
The deaths of thousands effectively amplify the psychological effect.
>>494395
>Really though come on. Do you think there's a single race other than the Japanese who are more suited to take a nucler attack?
I don't have a list in my mind sorting races by ability to absorb nuclear attacks. Because I'm not mental.
>>494395
Japanese is a nationality.
>>494399
So you say. Whether the amplification was necessary is the question.
>>494415
Its also worth noting that Hiroshima was the site of an army base. If we had decided to strike the base with conventional attacks the city would have been destroyed all the same.
Imagine how many lives would have been saved IF 2 nukes were dropped on german cities įn 44
>>494427
Imagine how many lives would have been saved if 2 nukes were dropped on german cities in 39.
You need to give to give the germans the time to kill the jews first though
>>494435
Imagine how many lives would have been saved if 1 nuke was dropped onto Provincetown in 1620
>>494446
Imagine how many lives would have been saved if 500,000 nukes had been dropped on Earth during the Cambrian.
>>494448
>can't handle the counter-bants
>>494395
I bet the Poles and Koreans could do well.
Poland lost a higher proportion of their population than any other country during WW2, and they survived that, and then survived four decades of communism.
They're durable folks.
>>494446
You can act as obnoxious if you want but if you are even slightly familiar with japanese zealot autism of ww2 and general ww2 combat you have to be retarded to claim that the nukes were a bad idea. There were other options yes. Which might have even cost less lives but the nukes were the most sure option to end it.
>>494458
IMO Canada could stand one too
>>494013
Congo wars? I don't know too much about them but: Oh! The horror!
>>494405
I'm pretty sure Swiss people have even crazier armor saves then Japanese people when fighting defensive battles.
Also, Jews work like Saiyans, after you nearly wipe them out, they get super strong.
>>494511
Their jew power is shared between the species, but is always constant.
If two jews exist in the world, and one dies, the first jew is twice as powerful.
>>494071
It was a war crime that purposefully targeted civilians when they knew full well Japan would've surrendered
>>494568
A lot of people think that, but that's actually the Native Americans. That's why the US can't just annex the remaining reservations, and everyone wants to be 1/64th Cherokee.
If you kill enough Jews though, they can go Super-Jew, which is how they defeated Nasser on Planet Namek.
>>494394
Oh really?
The reason such a horrific display was necessary was because of Japan's culture of death before surrender, which is why not even the bombs could convince the emperor to surrender.
If it weren't for that, and it was just a war of attrition in which we would eventually go and ransack ever single Japanese town and each time throw the next peace agreement into the trash, you REALLY think that would have been better for the Japanese?
Or else please link me to the many posts that prove that the war would have ended a third way
>>494198
That's not a popular opinion, Chester.
>>494652
>i demand absolute proof that i am wrong or i am correct by default
Yeah, nah.
