Friendly reminder that the Atomic bombings of Japan were war crimes and the Allies are literally on the exact same moral level as the Axis
>>932692
Yeah but we won so it doesn't matter.
>>932723
>winning the ability to create and maintain a Western neoliberal society which then destroys the west
yeah we 'won'
>>932732
You know for all 4chan jokes about suicide, you'd think you'd support the self-destruction of western culture.
>>932732
hindsight is 20/20, champion.
Somebody post the jap war crime denial pic pls
>>932743
>>932762
Do you have the "I didn't commit war crimes starter pack" too, by any chance?
I think the trade off was well worth it to be honest. The 3rd most powerful ocular ninjutsu in exchange for two cities? I've got to wonder how many it would've taken for the Japanese people to activate their Rinnegan.
>>932692
So were the firebombings of German and Japanese cities, and those killed way more people than the A-bombs and no one talks about them.
Friendly reminder that the atomic bombings of Japan were the morally correct decision because the planned land invasion would have cost millions more American and Japanese lives.
>>932692
Didnt the geneva conventions get made after ww2?
>>933202
Yeah. 1949.
Friendly reminder that the laws at the time does not say that bombing of defended cities is illegal, and no nation/person was proscecuted for it after the war. And that goes for both allies and axis forces.
>>932692
>Friendly reminder that the Atomic bombings of Japan were war crimes
On what basis?
>and the Allies are literally on the exact same moral level as the Axis
I don't recall the Allies breaking the double digit millions when it comes to civilian casualties.
>>933196
Estimates were between 150k and 515k, not millions. H. Hoover calculated half a million to a million fatalities.
>>932692
>Japan was setting up colonies in Asia.
>America was freeing theirs, with mutual consent of both parties.
>"""""""asia for asians"""""""
"...and the Allies are literally on the exact same moral level as the Axis."
>>932692
you should see the film "the Fog of War" where Macnamera says that Lemay, after the war, said "If we'd lost, we'd all have been prosecuted as war criminals. and I think he's right. But what makes it immoral if you lose and not immoral if you win?"
Also, look at the behavior of the Japanese Imperial army in Manchuria, in Korea, and some of the things they did with unit 731. Were it not for the Atomic Bombs, the US would have had to invade, would have lost probably hundreds of thousands, and you can bet would have taken out their retribution on the Japanese people far worse.
Look at the level of guilt and humiliation Germans are made to suffer. Do you even know a normal person from Japan in early-mid 20s who knows about WW 2 or cares?
The Japanese got off comparatively light. Look at Hiroshima today-- it's a modern, functioning, beautiful city. the Japanese haven't been brainwashed into hating themselves like the Germans to where they are willingly taking in millions of foreign hordes who are going to literally replace them as a people.
>>932692
>Friendly reminder that the Atomic bombings of Japan were war crimes
No they weren't. No one has ever been even charged with a war crime for aerial bombing. No one ever will be.
Also, only faggots who don't know what a special hell fire tornados from 'conventional bombing' are think the atom bombs used in Japan were 'especially terrible'.
The scary part about A-Bombs came later when the US & Russia built enough to kill the entire world x^y times over.
>>933278
Estimates are typically between 500k and 1.2 million for Americans and well above 1 million for the Japanese, though they vary greatly upon the length of the war, which we will never know. You didn't refute my point in any way, and even if the American casualties were as low as you claim you've only proven my point.
>>933292
>No one has ever been even charged with a war crime for aerial bombing
If you ever read "The Goldstone Report," (which, as we know, he has since "recanted" after all sorts of immense pressure from his fellow Jews) he seems to clearly suggest that the bombings Israel carried out during...which one was it, "Cast Lead" I think? Were in fact war crimes bc they were aimed at a civilian population.
Not sure how many Israelis ultimately were charged, but I do know Tsipi Livini was charged bc she needed a special "diplomatic dispensation" to go to London a few years ago without getting arrested and dragged before the Hague.
>>933306
Not him, but American casualty projections =/= American death projections. At least in the rest of the PTO for land combat, you had on average something like 5.3 wounded for each GI killed.
And don't forget, if you're quoting the 6th Army's projections, that's only for the landing itself and 90 days of operations to secure beachheads, not the overall invasion of Japan itself plus any occupation.
Friendly reminder that the Japs deserved far more than just two bombs
>>933196
Not to mention that the inevitable concurrent American-Soviet invasion of Japan could have also resulted in a German or Korean division scenario for Japan, which wouldn't be fun for absolutely no one.
>>933196
Not to mention, it would have assuredly been a joint venture with the Soviet Union invading from the north, resulting in a Japan partitioned into a liberal southern democracy and a communist northern police state, like Korea was.
That's what they tried to do in our timeline, even though they had only declared war on Japan two weeks before Japan surrendered.
>>933408
>>933410
>Not to mention that the inevitable concurrent American-Soviet invasion of Japan
How to tell someone has no idea what they're talking about.
A Soviet joint invasion was far from "inevitable" since the Soviet invasion plan for Hokkaido had step one as
>Beg the Americans for some landing craft.
To which the Americans could have easily said no. Plus, the invasion of the barely held Kuril islands cost the Soviets almost a third of their landing vessels, and even Hokkaido is going to be a hell of a lot more heavily defended.
It's unlikely that the USSR would have been given the go-ahead, it's even furthermore unlikely that they would have gotten anywhere, what with the basically 0 experience whatsoever in amphibious invasions and the inability to lug over the heavy equipment on a first wave that the Red army depended upon rather heavily.
If hostilities had continued, what you'd have seen is the Soviets pouring into Korea and China proper, not piddling away at Japan.
The victor rights history etc
>>933441
> the Soviet invasion plan for Hokkaido had step one as
Lets be clear: the Soviets coveted Japan. They REALLY wanted a North Japan. Even in our timeline where they didn't get to do jack shit against the Japanese.
>To which the Americans could have easily said no.
Why would American generals 'not' want to open a second front on what they believed was going to be the thickest fighting of the entire Pacific theater?
And considering that American logistic support is what was basically propping up the Soviet Union, you think they were suddenly going to get stingy about a few lousy boats?
>>932692
>atomic bombs were war crimes
>not strategic bombing in general
That's how you spot someone who knows jack about shit.
>>933475
>Lets be clear: the Soviets coveted Japan. They REALLY wanted a North Japan. Even in our timeline where they didn't get to do jack shit against the Japanese.
And desire =/= capability. It was hundreds of miles from their launching points in Siberia to Hokkaido; that means, among other things, there's significant chance of getting lost or dispersed before contact on the beach, and your air support is going to be relatively sporadic, since they're not based by the fighting.
Lack of a port, and the extreme likelihood of the Japanese wrecking anything that the Soviets do manage to seize, means that you're doing this with light equipment only at least for the first month, more if resistance is stubborn. The Soviets did not do well historically in those kinds of situations, when was the last successful Soviet paradrop you'd heard of?
Just because they wanted it, doesn't mean they're going to get it.
>Why would American generals 'not' want to open a second front on what they believed was going to be the thickest fighting of the entire Pacific theater?
Because they don't want a Soviet presence in Japan? I mean, you already had quite a bit of suspicion with the diplomatic maneuvering and countermaneuvering in China and Manchuria.
>And considering that American logistic support is what was basically propping up the Soviet Union, you think they were suddenly going to get stingy about a few lousy boats?
It's not the boats, it's what the Soviets are going to do with those boats, and how that's not in America's interests.
>>933483
Still no law that at the time made strategic bombing a crime.
>>933483
How is dropping a fucking atom bomb on a city full of civilians strategic bombing
>>933520
Bombing enemy cities, either to attack the enemy morale or their industry, is the very definition of "strategic bombing".
>>933520
I dont know how strategic bombing works: the post
>>933493
>Just because they wanted it, doesn't mean they're going to get it.
Even a half-assed Soviet invasion would be a useful diversion, because it would force Japan to garrison troops away from the American front, which was going to be bloody in ways that would make Iwo Jima and Okinawa look like skirmishes.
>Because they don't want a Soviet presence in Japan? I mean, you already had quite a bit of suspicion with the diplomatic maneuvering and countermaneuvering in China and Manchuria.
Maybe some of the more conservative generals would grumble about working with the Soviets, but at the end of the day what mattered was making the winning tactical and strategic decisions, which means coordinated strikes like what took place on D-day.
>It's not the boats, it's what the Soviets are going to do with those boats, and how that's not in America's interests.
Probably the same thing that they did with all the Locomotives and Jeeps that America lent to them through Lend-Lease: retro-engineer a cheaper and more durable soviet knock-off after the war.
62% of those killed in Hiroshima were under the age of 10. 90% of the people living in Hiroshima were children, women, and elderly people.
Why can't people admit that killing innocent civilians is bad, even when they're Japanese? It's disturbing. You don't have to precursor every statement with "BUT IT STOPPED A LAND INVASION AND JAPAN WOULDN'T HAVE SURRENDERED OTHERWISE (even though that's a debatable conclusion)." It was wrong to do this. It was horrifying. There is a reason why the United States literally banned survivors from publishing their diaries and drawings and even poems about the event, and why they didn't declassify photos of the city and survivors and dead until much later. They didn't want people to know that "dropping the bomb" resulted in so much suffering and horror.
>>933520
It is the strategy of bombing civilians in order to frighten them into submission or pummel their will to continue the war.
>>933561
do you have anything to back that up?
>>933520
So, read up about strategic bombing then question the morality of strategic bombing and never nukes by themselves. Atom bombs were jut another bomb. It's how the bombs are used that is the moral issue.
if ww3 was to break out, how long would it be before the nukes started flying? that can be the only ultimatum in the next world war, right? "fuck this, why send thousands of troops to die when i can nuke"
>>933580
>"fuck this, why send thousands of troops to die when i can nuke"
Because the guy you're fist-fighting also has the big iron on his hip. If you decide that you're getting your ass kicked bad enough that you need to whip out the big iron, you'd better hope you're quicker on the draw than he is (though the likeliest scenario is that you shoot each other simultaneously.)
Besides, the weaponry of WW3 will almost certainly be cyber.
Control the computers in your soldiers' smart rifles, control the computers guiding your drones, control the electricity flowing through your grid and through your enemy's. Dominate the information game in order to build global consensus in your favor. Use diplomacy and foreign sanctions to deprive them of crucial scarce resources.
A tiny force of hardened professionals backed up by effective combined arms is far more tactically flexible and cost-effective than a large mass of infantry or an armored column. And as President Barack Obama has learned, its far more politically convenient (and lets him wage warfare on the cheap) to slay his enemies with high-tech kill drones instead of bothering with all the thorny diplomatic and political ramifications of putting boots on the ground.
>>933571
Never worked
>>933306
I wasn't actually trying to refute your point, just wanted to give numbers
>>932732
>muh /pol/ buzzwords
Come back from your containment board when you've had a single original thought.
>>933574
the book I read marks its source as 'Medical Effects of Atomic Bombs' published by the US Army, which took into account where people were at when they were killed or injured by the bomb, and included statistics such as if they were children, if they were in school/what school, etc. I don't know if the entire report is available for reading but volume 6's PDF is: https://archive.org/details/MedicalEffectsOfAtomicBombsVol6Published
>>933663
Oh I never said it was a "good" strategy. In fact it's actually a pretty shitty one because strategically speaking you're better off laser-focusing on their heavy industry and disabling their actual means of waging war, instead of simply pissing off the locals by dropping bombs on their stores and relatives.
But it is a strategy, nonetheless, and it has since evolved into something far more cost-effective and difficult to subdue: terrorism.
>>933558
>Even a half-assed Soviet invasion would be a useful diversion, because it would force Japan to garrison troops away from the American front, which was going to be bloody in ways that would make Iwo Jima and Okinawa look like skirmishes.
Except that American interdiction bombing (which would have been going on for about 9 months at the time Olympic would have been launched) would mean that mobility for the Japanese is almost nil; the troops on Hokkaido are there to stay regardless.
>Maybe some of the more conservative generals would grumble about working with the Soviets, but at the end of the day what mattered was making the winning tactical and strategic decisions, which means coordinated strikes like what took place on D-day.
Yeah, like Stilwell! Oh, wait, he was one of the most pro-Communist generals, and got fired for it, and even he was concerned about Soviet maneuvering in the Far East as far back as '44.
You're right though, at the end of the day, it's about making the winning strategic decision, and Soviet aid in this sense, is mostly useless and might come with a hefty price tag in the form of what happens post-war.
>Probably the same thing that they did with all the Locomotives and Jeeps that America lent to them through Lend-Lease: retro-engineer a cheaper and more durable soviet knock-off after the war.
I actually meant the strategic picture: America really didn't want Japan under Soviet control. They made a big stink about it at Yalta and Tehran. They're not going to let this go forward.
>>933996
Not him, but at least in the timeframe of WW2, "laser bombing" on specific installations in enemy cities is very, very much outside your reach. Hell, for about the first 3 years of the war, actually finding enemy cities at all was hit or miss.
And, to further elaborate, "Strategic bombing" kind of encompasses both a notion of triying to win the war by breaking enemy morale through bombing, or trying to hammer their industry to the point where it's no longer effective, part of the reason (although not the only, and probably not the most important one) the historic strat bomb campaign over Germany was so ineffective is that the Allies never quite decided how they wanted to pursue things. Harris wanted to do a Trenchard-style terror bomb them into submission, but a lot of the rest of his own people didn't want to do that and were providing pressure from below to hit this, that, or the other key industry, and the Americans wanted to focus on communication lines, railroads, canals, etc, on the notion that it doesn't matter how much the Germans are building if they can't get it from point A to point B, and as a result, nothing was really crippled at all.
Speer's diaries express some worries that if the Anglo-Americans just picked something, anything, and smashed it beyond repair, they'd be hosed, although a lot of modern scholarship disagrees with his somewhat pessimistic prognoses.
>war crimes
when will this meme die?
>>932692
War is hell.
It just goes to show what total war is like.
No sides were totally innocent, be it dropping nukes, indiscriminately bombing cities, killing P.O.W.'s or civilians.
