Obama's visit to Hiroshima and some reactions I've seen online makes me wonder why Amerifats think Pearl Harbor was one of the worst things that happened during WWII?
Sure, it was an underhanded, kind of dick move not to declare war before attacking but it was a military target at the end of the day.
>Breitbart
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/05/27/dont-want-get-nuked-dont-bomb-pearl-harbor/
>>1213818
Who thinks that?
>>1213818
>some reactions I've seen online makes me wonder why Amerifats think Pearl Harbor was one of the worst things that happened during WWII?
Who the fuck thinks that? The 'Remember Pearl Harbor' thing isn't about "one of the worst thing of the war" happening. It's about getting attacked unprovoked and teaching some slants to eat crow.
>but it was a military target at the end of the day
So were Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Cry more weeb.
>>1213979
> attacked unprovoked
Yeah sure, America purposefully did not sell Japan supplies and basically told them to go fuck themselves. Japan saw the writing on the wall, America was going to join on the side of the Allies, they were hearing out pleas to save Australia and selling shit to the Allies without question.
It was a preemptive strike to weaken the American navy and draw them away from the British colonies. It achieved both objectives but the Japs really underestimated the might of the USA.
>>1214018
>sell me your stuff
>no
>okay I'll punch you
>implying the seller was the aggressor in this situation
Weeb raus.
>>1214018
yeah and look up WHY the americans embargoed imperial japan. Unfortunately I used to be taken in by the japan apologist 'but muh oil embargo' arguments, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny
>>1214018
>America embargoed Japan for no reason.
Attacking Chinks and European Colonies in Southeast Asia is a very embargoable reason.
Especially when Japan joined the League of Nation which all agreed that nobody ought to landgrab fuckers for colonies anymore.
>>1214018
The US was definitely in their right to embargo a maniacal genocidal war criminal rogue regime you fucking nigger.
What is with this obsession pseudo-intellectuals have with downplaying or otherwise making digs at the US's role in the war?
>AKSCHUALLY they deserved Pearl Harbor
>AKSCHUALLY the Soviets did more
>AKSCHUALLY [insert Hollywood movie] is completely inaccurate, fucking muricans, rite xD
go tip your fedora somewhere else.
>>1214018
>be in a bar
>start talking shit and punch some of the customers
>bar owner tells you to get the fuck out and stop being an asshole
>you take a shotgun to his house and shoot his dog
>but he's still the aggressor because he kicked you out of the bar
>>1214619
>war criminal
>war crimes
literally something that doesn't exist until the victor is decided.
>>1214695
Literally something that exists since major world powers agreed to such laws in the late 18fuckinghundreds.
Also it wasn't even war crimes: they just broke international treaties and downright invaded places.
>>1214695
Exactly. Pretty sure nuking cities is a war crime.
>>1213818
>but it was a military target at the end of the day.
So were the cities
>>1214715
It's honestly no more of a war crime than the Allied civilian bombing campaigns,which killed more than the nukes overall. I don't know why so much focus is put on the nukes. Dubya Dubya 2 was a brutal war for all parties involved.
>>1214715
If it ain't on the Hague treaty or cited in the Geneva convention, it's not a war crime.
>>1214619
Coming from a country who genocided the native americans and where niggers were still considered sub-humans, it's a bit rich
>>1215057
Literally whataboutism. Fuck off, Marxist scum.
>>1215017
This. You cant make something a war crime retro-actively
>>1214621
>be in an Asian bar
>drunk white guy comes in
>says the bar is now his property
>one of the Asian guys tries to form an alliance
>can't do it because the white guy has already bought off everyone else
>have to resort to sneaky tricks to fight off the hypocritical white man
fix'd, Asia for Asians wasn't just a meme
>>1213818
Because it's the only time we were attacked at home? It's the worst by default.
>>1214715
Bombing cities is not a war crime and it's ridiculous that you would think such a thing.
Is shelling the living shit out of a city while besieging it a war crime now as well,
For those who contend that America brought Pearl Harbor on themselves because of the 'oil embargo', do you at least acknowledge that the embargo was a reasonable & measured response to the Japanese aggression in East Asia? A response that came after several denunciations of Imperial Japan's aggressive conduct?
Or do you think America was beholden to subsidize Japan's territorial designs on China (who was a nominal friend & valued commercial partner of the US)?
>>1215819
>JAPAN IS ASIA'S SAVIOR
>t. Japan
Oh and America was literally preparing to liberate the fucking Philippines, their only colony in the region.
Japan were the aggressor, and by that standard alone, anything that happens after kind of is justified tbqh.
But I do think that there is a real moral difference between deliberately attacking a military target, and nuking civilians though.
>>1215829
Hawaii wasn't a state in 1941.
>>1215017
I'm far from expert, but I thought the disproportionate intentional killing of civilians (as in, more collateral than actual damage to military targets) is considered a war crime?
>>1215895
No it isn't. But at least you acknowledge upfront that you are probably wrong.
>>1215829
You forgot Canucks burning down the white house but whatever.
>>1214018
Save Australia from what?
>>1215819
japanese consider themselves generically asian, thats why they have an open door policy on immigration. sure thing.
>>1213818
A sneak attack is pretty fucked up desu. Plus they targeted civilians as well.
>>1215874
Japan attacked civilians at Pearl Harbor. And the nukes saved lives. American AND Japanese lives.
>some reactions I've seen online makes me wonder why...
Ya goofed.
>>1215958
Japs targets were 100% military.
>>1215819
t. shinji nakamura
![354e02d58269f8976739f918efc4afec[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/yvpw5DX.jpg "354e02d58269f8976739f918efc4afec[1].jpg")
>>1215971
Yeah that's why they were strafing random cars around the island.
>>1215971
The rape of Nanking disagrees with you.
>>1215958
>And the nukes saved lives
Nukes don't save lives. They kill people. What ever kind of consequentialism you want to invoke to justify the nuking is just your own assumptions and conjecture.
>>1216021
You are right. A full invasion of Japan wouldn't have killed may Japanese civilians, that's a silly assumption of us to make
>hey maybe, just maybe targeting civilians at the end of ww2 was not as ethical as we like to believe
>TALK SHIT GET HIT! REMEMBER PEARL HARBOR! WE SAVED MORE NIP LIFES! LET ME TELL YOU ABOUT NANJING!
murrikan indoctrination at it's best
>>1216055
Great argument there. Please explain how you think a full invasion of Japan would result in less civilian causalities than the previous bombings? It was a necessary action to save lives, your sperging out won't change that. You seem mentally deficient, so please take your time.
>>1216032
The choice isn't between "Use the most destructive weapon known to man, or full-scale invasion".
Reality isn't fractured into black and white scenarios, and if you think it is, you might have a personality disorder and should see a doctor.
>>1216043
>So I guess I'm morally wrong if I shoot someone that's about to kill your family?
This isn't analogous at all, because Japan, at the point in time when America nuked them, did not have thousands upon thousands of troops in America killing civilians.
>>1216071
There were plans in place for a full invasion of Japan, that is a fact. Just because you want to put your head in the sand and deny it doesn't mean it's not true. But by all means, explain to me how you think the war could have ended with less civilian causalities.
>>1216055
>get utterly BTFO in your shit nip-apologist argument every single day
>resort to desperate strawman arguments
>>1216078
>But by all means, explain to me how you think the war could have ended with less civilian causalities.
Oh, I never said the war would ever end with less civilians casualties. I said the choice isn't between nukes and a full-scale invasion, as you should know, because the most comprehensive and destructive air raid in the history of human civilization was done 2 weeks prior to the nuking, which also killed between 80-200k people.
The problem isn't that you have collateral damage and kill civilians, but your target is military. The problem is when you use civilians as an object for winning a war.
If you do not see the moral difference between the two, there is no point having this discussion.
>>1216103
>The problem is when you use civilians as an object for winning a war.
Wow it's almost like it was part of the largest and most civilian-intensive total war in history.
>US cutting off trade would have destroyed the Japanese economy
>Only option was to either bend to western demands or find resources elsewhere (SE Asia)
>Attack on US only a means of securing the ability to sue for some kind of peace after taking SE Asia since the Japs knew they couldn't 1v1
>Japs underestimated US industrial might
>Japan did have a declaration of war but they fucked up and it didn't get sent to the US before the attack occurred
>atom bombs were just considered as large bombs and nothing particularly heinous like they are now
I'm glad /his/ is full of people who are actually aware of history.
>>1216117
You can win a war without deliberately using civilians as a target.
Is this really hard to understand?
>>1216159
Not when the opposing government is using civilians to bolster the war effort through production of military materials, food supplies, an ever-growing pool of potential conscripts, etc.
Unless, what, you expect the US to root out and nuke very single Japanese soldier on the entirety of the islands?
>>1214018
This
War with the West was inevitable. The US and the colonial powers had done everything they could to prevent Japan from rising and becoming a major regional power, this was proven with the scraps they were given after WWI and they were laughed at the League of Nations when demanding fair treatment.
>>1214695
This. Only the losing side has war criminals anyone who disagrees is a dumb faggot.
>>1216043
They didn't intentionally attack civilians at Pearl Harbor. They couldn't afford to, considering they had barely any force for the massive military presence there. Jap target list is freely available online.
>>1216177
>Not when the opposing government is using civilians to bolster the war effort through production of military materials, food supplies, an ever-growing pool of potential conscripts, etc.
This literally happens in every war. Do you think civilians just sit around doing nothing in a time of war?
>>1216187
>hurr this, this, this, look at my epic upvote system guys its just like back home at reddit
Why was Japan so righteously entitled to having an empire in East Asia? And how was their treatment after WWI not fair? It's not like Japan was a significant factor in the Entente victory. They should have been perfectly happy with their possessions by the 20s and they had no obligation to invade China or European colonial possessions.
>>1216208
Hence militaries target industrial civilian centers in almost every war.
>>1216222
>Hence militaries target industrial civilian centers in almost every war.
Yes, perhaps with targeted munitions, but not with bombs that literally annihilated everything around the industrial center in a 10+ mile radius.
>>1213818
My history teacher in high school claimed that it was a Japanese mistake in calculating time difference that meant they declared war slightly after instead of slightly before they attacked.
>>1216228
It's a big industrial center
>>1214613
Just a sidenote. During the negotiations in Versaille the Japanese people wanted to add some anti racist clause to some paper. The Japanese also felt they got fucked in the negotiations in general. Not that that's an excuse to invade all of east Asia
>>1216245
Weeb get out.
>>1216222
>Why was Japan so righteously entitled to having an empire in East Asia?
Why were the Europeans and Americans?
>And how was their treatment after WWI not fair? It's not like Japan was a significant factor in the Entente victory.
Irrelevant. They wanted German territories on the Chinese mainland and denied. The Washington Naval Treaty hampered Japanese ability to produce warships which pissed them off and gave the ultranationalists a gigantic boost in support leading to the militarization of Japan.
> They should have been perfectly happy with their possessions by the 20s and they had no obligation to invade China or European colonial possessions.
Well by that fucking logic neither the Americans or Europeans had any right to be in Asia. Which is exactly what the Japanese thought since they industrialized.
>>1216228
Sounds like they completely destroyed the factory and made it significantly harder to rebuild it by kill most of the former workers. Seems like a good way to save American lives, what's the problem? If people in the past had these weapons, you are sure as shit they would do what's in their power to save their own soldiers lives.
>>1214740
Because the nukes in Japan set a precedent that dropping nukes were an acceptable way of conducting warfare. This led to the Soviets getting keen on acquiring nukes and then the whole arms race, and then the Cuban missile crisis and many other situations were the doomsday clock was practically at zero
But yeah the firebombing of Tokyo etc. etc.
>Start a war with an industiral superpower
>get shit pushed in from the start
>1945
>"Surrender" "No"
It was either invasion or the nuke. Litterally anything else is historic revisionism. Advocating for another option is ignoring history, and if you side with invasion you should be locked up for being a threat to humanity for advocating for mass killing.
>>1215837
>Is shelling the living shit out of a city while besieging it a war crime now as well
>Is murdering civilians a war crime?
yes, or it should be
>>1216269
>If people in the past had these weapons, you are sure as shit they would do what's in their power to save their own soldiers lives.
That doesn't make it right.
>>1216267
Japs got the best deal out of the naval treaties. Anyone not blinded by weeabooness could see this.
>>1216069
> a full invasion of Japan would result in less civilian causalities than the previous bombings
Yeah because that would have caused the death of million people right?
Not that guy, but you are really eating out of the trash can that is American propaganda. Gongrats, you can maybe get work at Fox or something
The truth is of course that the Japanese surrendered when they realized the Soviets were entering the war.
You can't bomb a people into submission.
>>1216285
When is war ever right? It's a necessary evil at best. War is chaos and you do whatever is in your power to make it end as quickly as possible with the least amount of civilian causalities. In this case the nukes + fire bombings created less casualties than a full scale invasion of Japan would have produced.
>>1216263
Chad go back to /pol/
>>1216297
>spot the vatnik
>>1216297
>Soviet meme
The soviets had no means of invading Japan. By that point in the war the United States had destroyed Japan's navy and air force, yet they still persisted. even after the soviets had retaken manchurian the Japanese had not surrendered.
>>1216301
>created less casualties than a full scale invasion of Japan would have produced.
Like I said in my first post in this thread, that's only your consequentialist notion, and doesn't correspond to reality in any way.
I can also say that if I nuke Europe right this instant, I will prevent a future war in the year 2028. That wouldn't make the action correct, nor would it make the presumed reason I am doing it any more plausible.
>>1215895
You are correct, proportionality is a big factor. Blowing up a city that has a few military targets is undoubtedly a war crime. Pic related, its a relevant article of the Geneva Convention.
>inb4 "ending the war means its proportional"
>>1216322
Except they were in fucking war at the time. They used this judgement based off 4 years of experience, not some random fucking event you idiot. The Japs had no intention of surrendering and even attempted a coup to prevent it. You are ignoring facts just because "muh feelings'.
>>1216322
And like I said earlier in the thread, how else would the war have ended with less civilian casualties? You analogy is trash because we are not at war with Europe, we were at war with jap .
>>1216328
They did warn them.
>>1216338
Are you really saying that a warning makes the articles in the convention irrelevant?
>>1216328
I'd rather save millions of lives and have a few people call it a crime than do the alternative and let more people die.
>>1216347
Im not arguing about the morality of it, im arguing that the term war crime applies. So yes, you may be right, i dont know enough specifics about the situation, but it is a war crime nonetheless.
>>1216330
If anyone is arguing based on feelings here it's you.
You're so adamant that nuking people is okay, simply because of feelings of patriotism.
But, I'll remember it in the future, that next time someone attacks America, I know you'll deserve it because you're just a bunch of immoral inbred mutt dogs anyway.
>>1216357
Never once did I advocate on patriotism, dont lie. All you did was personally attack and say "no you" so I'm assuming you've realized your argument has no basis and should kys.
>>1215958
Firebombing and getting ready to carry out Operation Downfall, and keep Soviet shits out of Hok. saved lives.
All is fair in love and war, but there is a fine line between bombing a naval/air base on US territory and leveling complete cities full of civies to the ground, twice. Sure, the japanese were warned and the americans were not. But its hard to tell who is worse when the aggressor throws a sucker punch and a nut kick and the defender beats their head in with a bat until they whimper a surrender.
>>1216356
I'm a bit ignorant on the subject, so correct me if I'm wrong. But wasn't the Geneva convention that outlined these types of war crimes in 1949? If so than it was before this would be considered a war crime, which is unfair to judge them on some thing they didn't know existed.
how has this not been posted yet?
>>1216315
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/08/14/historians-soviet-offensive-key-japans-wwii-surrender-eclipsed-bombs.html
>Operation August Storm was launched Aug. 9, 1945, as the Nagasaki bomb was dropped, and would claim the lives of 84,000 Japanese and 12,000 Soviet soldiers in two weeks of fighting. The Soviets ended up just 50 kilometers (30 miles) from Japan's main northern island, Hokkaido.
>"The Soviet entry into the war played a much greater role than the atomic bombs in inducing Japan to surrender because it dashed any hope that Japan could terminate the war through Moscow's mediation," said Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, whose recently published "Racing the Enemy" examines the conclusion of the Pacific war and is based on recently declassified Soviet archives as well as U.S. and Japanese documents..
Fox news isn't too left wing for you is it? Didn't know that Soviets were just 50 kilometers from a significant Japanese island.
Look. First of all. The idea that the Americans dropped the nukes specifically to "end the war" doesn't have any empirical data to back it up. The two bombs were slightly different, so the American military command wanted to test how both of these bombs worked. No humanistic tendencies can be found in the decision to drop those nukes imo. There was no
>Sir, we should kill around 10000 Japs so that they will surrender immideatly
>Hmm, if we dont do that we will have to invade and 5 million people will die, so this decision is very good
This whole idea that the nukes were dropped for a somehow "just cause" is a way for American society to justify an act that is so obviously amoral and evil. They frame the history in such a way that they will look good, and the myth of American exceptionalism can live on.
In the parallel universe were Germans win the war there might be historians arguing that the holacaust was humanitarian because the Jews were conspiring with the Soviets and otherwise millions would have died in some weird scenario
>>1216267
>Why were the Americans.
>Well by that fucking logic neither the Americans had any right to be in Asia.
Wew lad you are dumb.
>>1216364
>It's okay to nuke civilians because of some conflated shitty consequentialist assumption
>This doesn't apply to the Japanese though, it was obviously immoral of them to attack Pearl Harbor as a reaction to the U.S stopping trade with them
Yeah, I'm sure it isn't patriotism.
>>1216367
Youre right. Its just irrelevant semantics really, but i just thought it'd be interesting for people to know that by any modern standard, this would be a heinous war crime. I dont apply morality to history, so its just a bit of entertaining hindsight. However, these morals are collectively agreed upon, and just because they werent written down 4 years before the convention, doesnt mean that they were useless back then.
So do with it what you will, i just enjoy applying the basic knowledge i have of international law to these real examples.
>>1216382
not that guy but what are you trying to say here? Are you making an argument?
>>1216376
You still haven't told me HOW the soviets were going to invade Japan. The Japanese did not want to surrender, there was even a coup to prevent them from doing so. The soviets did not have enough landing crafts or were even properly trained for a beach landings, so if they were 50 KM or 5 is irrelevant. The fact is that there was an American invasion in place that would have killed many more people than all the previous bombings combined did.
>>1216383
Again, never once did I advocate for Pearl Harbor being the justification. Dont put words in my mouth. America committed war crimes (See bombing of German Citizens, firebombing). But the Japenese had Nanking, Unit 871, their treatment of POW's, entire occupation of China etc etc.
>shitty assumption
Except that's direct military intelligence you're arguing against so you need to stop getting buttmad over history. Weeaboos need to die.
>>1216383
Maybe the Japanese wouldn't have gotten embargoed if they didn't invade a US trading partner. They were the aggressors, not the US.
>>1216394
>Maybe the Japanese wouldn't have gotten embargoed if they didn't invade a US trading partner. They were the aggressors, not the US.
So what, you've conceded that morality doesn't matter at all in wartime, so anything the Japanese did wasn't wrong or right anyway.
>>1216399
Then the Atomic bombings were fine. There is no fucking reason not to use the nukes developed at the time, leave the fucking thread already.
>>1216399
When they are at war with that country you fucking idiot. They weren't at war with the US when the attacked Pearl Harbor. And are you trying to say that the US should just let the Japanese aggression go unchecked and continue to invade a valuable US trade partner? Because that would be moronic.
>>1216382
>What is the Philippines and islands in the Pacific
>What is sphere of influence
Read a fucking book retard.
>>1213818
Pearl harbour is WW2 9/11 basically to Americans
The crucial difference IS that there was no state of war, if there was it would have been much less shocking.
However i think in general Americans are so unused to attacks on their own country that when it happens they freak out.
>>1216407
No, I want you to concede that the fact that you used nuclear weapon against someone makes you equally as heinous morally speaking as anyone else in that war.
Deal with it faggot. Your moral rationalization of the literal murder of 200000 people is literally Nuremberg "I was just following orders" tier.
>>1216408
Philippines and Islands in the Pacific came from a war with Spain, and the US was in the process of giving the Philippines independence. It even set up a small government and gave it advisors and everything else.
Islands are islands.
>Sphere of influence
US is a big country between the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, shit loads of natural resources and makes it money from trade. It's sphere of influence is always going to be huge like it's navy.
>>1216413
Say that in Korea and not online, faggot.
>>1216413
SJW, your logic is flawed in every way. Just stop please.
>>1216413
Maybe if I was a retard and thought that the world was black and white I would agree with you. But the fact is it was the best alternative to end the war the Japanese stared that would result in the least amount of civilian casualties. War is cruel, maybe the Japanese should have considered that before they started their imperial conquest.
>people treating the nuclear bombing of Japan as anything other than a necessary evil
>>1216421
Whys is this in the trash? Its not wrong.
>>1216411
>I think in general Americans are unused to attacks on their own country.
Americans are unused to country to attacks on their own soil Anon. When it happens they do freak out, and that freak out turns into bloodlust and raping another country into submission.
Hey, faggots, maybe your petty notions of morality have nothing to do with the interactions of powerful nation states?
>>1216390
>The soviets did not have enough landing crafts or were even properly trained for a beach landings
But as someone said earlier the Japanese navy was crippled beyond repair. I'm sure that the Soviets could have island hopped and shit like that.
I'll be the first to confess I don't know too much about this conflict. So you might well be right. I'm just thinking that the threat of the Soviet hoard entering the Japanese mainland must have been a consideration.
The historical narrative that you are presenting is very much the official American one, which makes me skeptical about it. Maybe your narrative holds the most truth, but maybe it doesn't. It's hard to know for sure, many smart scholars have different opinions I'm sure.
But to categorically say that the murder of hundreds of thousands of civilians is justifiable because of an unconformable idea of what would happened next is kinda ridiculous to me.
If you do that you are just repeating the party line. History can be interpreted in so many ways, seems kinda soulless to simply parrot the one that American neo-cons like and assume that that is the right one and mold your arguments after that.
So, don't you think that the threat of Soviet involvement in Japanese affairs was at least a significant part of the reason for Japanese surrender? Don't you think that some of the things that America did was horrible?
>>1216437
Powerful nation states are still led by people, who by and large have petty notions of morality.
>>1216228
>targeted munitions
Are you insane?
This is the mid twentieth century, there are no targeted munitions.
>>1216420
The US was never going to let the Philippines go, they acquired the islands through a treaty with Spain who were on the verge of losing the islands to the Filipino republican rebels. The Americans proceeded to crush the rebellion despite making promises to the republicans that they would aid them in their independence. The Americans had always intended to turn the Philippines into a client state with political, economic and trade treaties that heavily favored Americans, exactly what they did with Cuba.
>>1216439
Of course I think that the things America has done in war is horrible, but what country doesn't commit atrocities during war? And the reality is that the atomic bombings were the best options to save civilian lives, like it or not. The US had already planned an invasion and were fully committed to it, and it would have killed millions of soldiers and civilians. While killing hundreds of thousands of people with bombs is not a very nice reality to accept, it is a tough choice that must be made to save millions of lives. The soviets were important in the conflict against the Japanese for the sole fact of taking manchurian, but even that didn't force the Japanese to surrender. The Japanese were so committed to continuing the war they even attempted a coup. The nukes were evil, but a necessary evil.
>>1216444
People in power. Morality is totally irrelevant in any sense except personally when no one can hold power against you. This thread is full of people exhausting themselves to death arguing whether some action by some figure was moral or not by their own arbitrary standards. None of these people can be held accountable.m most are dead, and if they were living, you would be as insignificant as a dog.
>>1216461
There were, but you had to keep flying in a straight line, have clear visibility, and not have the enemy using basic radio jamming.
>>1216055
>be wrong
>shill on 4chan about it
Seems like you need to look in the mirror
>>1216461
>>1216439
>I don't know much
>but I still feel qualified to hold a strong contrarian position on the matter
>>1216480
As much as I have a boner for this, a radar guided missile isn't going to be nearly as useful when you're trying to hit a building in a city full of buildings.
Absolute rape against ships in the open ocean though.
Because Americans think they have the right to tell anyone in the world what to do. This why America -- a nation located in North America -- was bullying Japan -- a nation located in Asia -- about how they should conduct affairs in Asia. The Japanese knew that unless the Americans and British were booted out of Asia would they be free to galvanize the rest of Asia into freedom and building a better East Asia for all.
>>1216483
>be a little humble
>how dare you have an opinion!!!?
So I should just always pretend to be a scholar in every subject in case I happen to have something to say?
Also, the idea that the nuclear bombings and other air raids against civilians were very questionable is not "contrarian", it's just fucking common sense
>>1216496
>waaaaaaah why is the US getting mad that I'm invading and genociding their Chinese trading partner.
>>1216507
China was basically an American vassal country with deep media ties to magazines like TIME who printed anti-Japanese propaganda. To let China continue was it was doing was a security risk for Japan.
>>1216506
common sense is often nonsense
>>1216467
aight, but remember the value of thinking critically
you can question shit without fundamentally disagreeing
>>1216518
shitty little witticism are also often nonsense
>>1216530
voltaire please
>>1216515
>they print some newspapers that say we are bad
>better prove it to them by invading and slaughtering millions of people
Are you an actual retard?
>>1216544
Better to strike first at the Anglo-American imperialists than be choked to death slowly.
>>1216542
I don't get this
p-please explain
>>1216547
How would they be chocked to death slowly? Any proof to back that up? Get off this thread you revisionist mongoloid.
>>1215862
It's justified, but it is an act of war without a doubt.
>>1216496
>helping someone is bad because they're on another continent
>>1216551
>>1216277
>we will surrender but you can't have the emperor
>lol nah dawg
*drops deuce*
>>1216558
>embargo
>an act of war without a doubt
retard alert
>>1216587
>...and also all our colonial shit that we stole from your allies and trade partners cause we're cool now right? :^)
>>1216593
You're entitled to believe whatever you want.
>>1214714
Rape of Nanking was a war crime.
>>1216618
>not trading with someone is an act of war
>>1216506
The only reason you think the bombing of civilians in the 20th century is questionable, is because you as a person of the 21st century are unable to place yourself in the context of the 20th.
The people of the 20th century could not afford your delicate sensibilities. They did not possess the precise scalpels of warfare that we possess today so instead they wielded the clumsy hammers they did have as deftly as could be expected of them. They had already been through WW1 where the precedent was set that a formerly safe civilian populace could be targeted from the air with relative impunity. They had already come to accept in the 19th cenury that in the modern age of nation-states and conscription that warfare had become a struggle between Hobbesian leviathans where the entire nation could be ground to dust through attrition and not just the few professional soldiers hundreds of mile away.
So no, bombing civilians was not "questionable" during the 20th century, morally distasteful certainly but in no way was it "questionable".
Read some books before you start second guessing the decisions of the people of the past.
>>1214715
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both perfectly legal acts under the international laws of war then in effect.
>>1213818
>provide weapons and fundings to the enemies of Japan via lend-lease
>make it clear that an attack on Dutch East Indies will bring US into war
>cut off oil to Japan, forcing them to have to take the DEI for oil
>forced to do the inevitable, Japan decides to hit the American fleet to make the war against the US quick and easy
Americans are retarded. Pearl Harbor is exactly what FDR wanted. The US could have easily stayed out of the war and nothing would have happened.
>>1216634
wew
This is extremely pseudo intellectual. I suggest you take a look at the comment and yourself.
Also your argument is shit but I have no energy to counter your bullshit, have a good day and try to become a little more self concious
>>1216660
Nice non-argument gayboy.
>>1216660
Not even him but his post was fine, you are the only retard here avoiding a subject you clearly have no knowledge about. I think it's best if you go now.
>>1216653
>Being bombed, having thousands of your own troops and citizens surrounded/imprisoned was part of the plan!
>>1216672
Of course!
>>1216653
There was nothing "inevitable" about Japan's actions. They attacked America's trade partners unprovoked in a futile attempt at Eastern imperialism. The only justifiable thing to do after the US stopped trading them oil was to pull out of their shitty war in China and stop pretending to be a belligerent superpower.
>>1216675
>They work for the invalid. The Wheelchaired man.
>>1216653
>stopping unchecked aggression with peaceful embargoes and Supplying trade partners constitutes seeking war
You can't make this level of retardation up.
>>1216672
>governments wouldn't let people to die if they thought there was a gain
FDR was a Keynesian, this is obvious. He believed that creating artificial economic needs would help the economy. We see this with all of his New Deal policies. However, war would force an economic need upon the entire country. All industries would be forced to help support this war. This, FDR thought, would save the US from the Great Depression. As such, he dicked all he could into WW2 until the Japanese gave the perfect excuse for war.
>>1216698
>perfect excuse for war
....by going to war
>>1216689
An embargo is fine, yes. Yet supporting the enemies of a country and vowing to wage war against the country (a war based upon circumstances that did not involve the US whatsoever) might cause some tension.
>>1216496
This
Despite what the retards here say Japan going to war with the Western powers was inevitable. The Japanese suspicion and animosity towards the colonial powers in Asia began even before the Meiji Restoration and built up overtime after repeated infractions against them in an attempt to contain Japanese expansion and the fear of an Asian regional power.
>>1216705
By supporting do you mean continuing the trade relation China and the US previously had? Also I think an act of defense with allied nations is far from seeking war. If anything it was to dissuade the Japanese from attempting to attack them as they would be fighting against a superior force.
>>1216686
Read a fucking book moron or at least do a simple wikipedia search, war was ABSOLUTELY inevitable.
>>1216711
Try making an actual argument instead of useless meme arrows too, while you're at it.
>>1216705
>that did not involve the US whatsoever
Except that China was a trade partner and friendly with the US. Except that the Western Allies Japan stole territories from were friendly with the US. Except that the US had its own threatened territories in East Asia.
The United States had no reason at all to support Japan against their own allies, and Japan had no reason to invade said allies.
>>1216723
>war was inevitable because Japan wanted war
You've hit rock bottom. Your argument is done.
>>1216742
>Japan going to war was inevitable
>nuhuh
This literally sums up your shitposts.
>>1216736
Nah, I'm off to "read some books". That way I can pleasure the guy who wrote a long ass paragraph about how "time changes", and how you therefore cannot call the murders of hundreds of thousands of civilians "questionable".
Fucking bootlickers man
I'M OUT
>abloobloo why do fattyclappyfats care more about their country being bombed than the time jerry gave a disapproving look towards north stamfordwimblyshire upon thesslewick ;-;
>>1216228
>10+ mile radius
Over dramatizing by an order of magnitude.
The radius of destruction was a mile.
>>1215895
In total war, everyone is a military target.
>>1216755
On the contrary, I believe Japan going to war would be inevitable if Japan wanted to continue being bloodthirsty imperialist psychopaths in China. I think we can both agree though that that would constitute as "starting the problem".
>>1213818
Completely justified, not just in the context of Pearl Harbor, but because it was a necessary evil to get the Japs to surrender, which they sure as fuck weren't willing to (Cherry Blossoms at Night)
>>1216278
How about you look it up and stop debating with your fucking emotions? The international laws of war aren't that hard to find, Shirley.
>>1216208
And in every war civilians are targeted for that exact reason. Are you even thinking about what you are typing??
>>1216465
>The US was never going to let the Philippines go
It's literally an independent nation right now, anon.
>>1216527
No, fuck you. You're not "critically thinking". You're not providing a valuable service by asking questions.
You're the dumb fuck who walks into a fucking debate, admits they've done no research, offers an opinion, and then belittles people who disagree.
Kill yourself.
>>1216285
>That doesn't make it right.
The fuck you say. If you do something to insure that your country wins a war, so that your country and your people continue to survive and prosper, that makes it right.
Now on the other hand, if you go all ISIS and deliberately commit war crimes just to be a ghastly fuck, you deserve everything that will be coming your way. Drones and all.
Good thread lads. Its always fun to BTFO Japanese war crime apologists and historical revisionists.
>>1216653
Fucking retard.
FDR wasn't gonna let Japan fuel their occupation of China and Indochina with American fuel. Nothing wrong with that. It was Japan who fucked up thinking that they couldn't attack Singapore, Dutch East Indies, and even the Philippines without bringing America into war. Had Japan not attacked Pearl Harbor the US may have just given up on the Philippines as there were strategic plans along those lines. Americans by and large didn't want the Philippines and may have relinquished it to avoid war.
>>1216687
Frank?
>>1216952
Read a book nigger.
>>1215067
> I decide your political views so I can summarily dismiss you.
fucking rectal hominid
I wish I had a time machine to send every Imperial Japanese apologist back to WWII to die in the first wave of Operation Downfall.
>>1216558
>Embargo
>an act of war
Gee anon we I had no idea that nations are obligated to subsidize other nations rape campaigns.
>>1215912
The U.S. burned and sacked Toronto so we'll call it even.
>>1217261
What does that have to do with anything?
>>1216660
>Also your argument is shit
>but I have no energy to counter your bullshit
Why even post that you fucken retard.
You're like a creationist who runs away form scientific logic when it is presented to you.
>>1216774
Retard, its easy to look in hind site.
>"If i was there back then but had today's knowledge i would have done this"
cool another jap war crime denial thread featuring Western weeaboos.
>>1217573
momo did you even read the thread? Back to /b/ with you nigger
>>1216821
>Philippines
>Independent
>kek
Your reading comprehension is shit.
>>1215819
That's a fucking terrible analogy.
I can't understand why anon trust Chinese' propaganda.
>>1215057
>genocided the native americans
meme
>niggers were still considered sub-humans
And we treated them better than the nips did everyone else
Atrocities of The US is good manner.
All combats of Japan army is bad manner.
Because The US is winner.
>>1216587
They still have an emperor
>>1215819
Really shit analogy m8
>>1213818
As expected from a nippon image board
Japan contributed to the decolonization process of Asia and should be proud of that, but there's a reason alot of SEAans, Koreans, Indonesians and the Chinese don't like them very much. They worked in their self interests. They also attacked first, it's not America's fault if they want to cut trade with them. And besides, Japan is doing way better than America as a collective, they helped Japan rise to the top of the tech sector. I don't know why you weeb shits keep posting this thread.
>>1216465
>The US was never going to let the Philippines go
lmao
>A local assembly was elected in 1907 and the Tydings-McDuffle Act of 1934 established the Philippine Commonwealth. Full independence was promised in 1946, a promise that was kept, although the U.S. retained treaty bases at Clark Field and Olongapo for many more years
>>1218506
Your reading comprehension is shit.
>>1216145
>Japan did have a declaration of war but they fucked up and it didn't get sent to the US before the attack occurred
It wasn't an actual declaration of war, just a message that would have made it clear war was imminent. The declaration of war wasn't made at all until after the attack.
>>1217587
Yes I read the thread and the weeaboos are getting destroyed.
"Muh Embargos are an act of aggression!!!"
"East Asia is rightful Nippon Clay!!! America Piggu get out REEEE"
"The US were scared of the Soviets getting into the Island, that's why they dropped bomb!!! Wait what? Soviets didn't have any boats?? Shut up you imperialist piggu xD"
What would have happened if America didn't drop the two Atomic bombs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall
Disgusting Japs should be grateful America showed the gratitude to drop the bombs and not invade them straight on lmao
>>1218130
>Japan contributed to the decolonization process of Asia and should be proud of that
This
It's the only good thing that came out of their war of conquest in Asia. The Japanese weakened the colonial powers and the rebels and insurgents they trained and funded in the colonial holdings such as Azad Hind laid the seed for the independence movements that ousted the Europeans from the region...well for the most part.
>>1218856
>The US was never going to let the Philippines go, they acquired the islands through a treaty with Spain who were on the verge of losing the islands to the Filipino republican rebels. The Americans proceeded to crush the rebellion despite making promises to the republicans that they would aid them in their independence
>despite making promises to the republicans that they would aid them in their independence
>A local assembly was elected in 1907 and the Tydings-McDuffle Act of 1934 established the Philippine Commonwealth
>Full independence was promised in 1946,
>a promise that was kept
Maybe yours is.
Americans knew way beforehand that Japan was going to attack Pearl. Radar and radio was a thing already. They knew there was no way Japan could invade the west coast. US knew it was going to get involved in the war for sure. They just wanted to look like the "good guys" who made war only in self defense and letting a couple of ships get sunk half way across the pacific was the perfect false flag operation.
>>1219358
>radar and radio was a thing already
Japanese aircraft were not spotted by radar until literally a few minutes before the attack.
>>1213818
I still find it hillarious that America cared more about French and Dutch colonies rather than france and Netherlands themselfs getting conquered
I've also seen people reacting by complaining about the Rape of Nanking and the persecution of the Phillipino people.
>>1216465
The difference is the Flips have no problem with being allies with the USA. Meanwhile they didn't like the Japanese at all at the fucking time. The Philippines spent, what? 300 years of being bigoted Catholics?
>Client state
Lel, the same fucking country that oustered US bases initially when the cold war ended. We sure have them on a leash like the ebil masters that we supposedly are.
>>1219376
mfw reading how many French the US killed while liberating them
>>1214730
When you knowingly target areas with more civilians than military then it's a little hard to argue that
>>1221062
Not really.
Every single military target had more civies than military in it, it was a byproduct of the way industrialization worked.
Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both very valid military targets.
Also this fails to mention that the largest type 99 rifle factory in Japan was in one of these two cities, but you'll have to forgive me I've forgotten which it was.
>>1220160
That the Philippines isn't a US client state.
Why don't you prove yours instead.
Also, ally=/=client state
>>1219437
>Lel, the same fucking country that oustered US bases initially when the cold war ended. We sure have them on a leash like the ebil masters that we supposedly are.
They threw out their American-backed dictator after his corruption became just too much to bear.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_Marcos
>>1214613
>Especially when Japan joined the League of Nation which all agreed that nobody ought to landgrab fuckers for colonies anymore.
America wasn't even in the League and pre-Truman Doctrine policy was isolationist so why the fuck would America give any shits about slants attacking slants half a world away?
Your point doesn't make any sense. America embargoed Japan because America had already made up it's mind to join the Allies. Which meant war with Hitler and by extension Tojo.
>>1221202
>American political, economic and cultural hegemony
>Government grants extremely favorable economic agreements with American corporations while passing laws that hamper growth of local businesses
>Not client state
I'm fairly sure you don't know shit about shit
you don't start nothing, there won't be nothing.
>>1222110
>so why the fuck would America give any shits about slants attacking slants half a world away?
Are you kidding me? The Japanese were invading China, a major trade partner and friend to America. Was America just suppose to keep supplying the Japanese with oil to continue their conquest?
>>1222350
US didn't go to war for China. China was cucked by Japan for decades, and actively at war with Japan for 4 years before the US entered the war, and it was because Japan dared move against European colonies. Learn some history, or stop posting, or both.
>>1222365
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. First America didn't go to war for anyone, Japan started the war. And the oil embargo was to stop Japan's unchecked aggression against a major trade partner. Japan only invaded the European colonies because they need resources to continue their war against China.
>>1219080
Why is decolonization seen as such a good thing? I don't know much about Asia but it seems like colonies in general went to shit after decolonization.
>>1220057
Fuck frogs, weebs, and nips
>>1214018
Might want to stretch before all those mental gymnastics.
>>1216432
>bet that shut won't be happening again
They can't fight you twice if they can barely stand. One and done
>>1222537
>all of this bullshit
>nothing even remotely related to history
Go away you dumb European faggot. At least Americans know how to stay focused on the thread topic.
>>1216245
Actually, they miscalculated the time to decipher the message, even though the American code breakers already knew about the message and the encryption. It's not clear exactly what the American response is from getting held up in chain of command, not being sure if it was serious or not, or some people claim, intentionally letting it happen.
>>1213818
>yfw half of hawaii is japanese
>yfw hawaii was the only state to not intern japanese
>>1219371
And even then they were mistaken for a flight of bombers expected in around that time
>>1222579
Hawaii was not a state.
>>1222386
>And the oil embargo was to stop Japan's unchecked aggression against a major trade partner.
The oil embargo was placed because Japan took French Indochina. US didn't give a shit about how many Chinks were raped and killed. Why do you think nothing was done between 1937 and 1941?
>On March 10 Kalakaua met Meiji to propose a marriage between Princess Victoria Kaiulani and Prince Higashifushimi Yorihito, a few days later the proposal was denied, but the ban on immigration was eventually lifted in 1885.
>The political environment made an unfavorable shift with the onset of a new era known as the Hawaiian Revolutions. In 1887 the settlers ended absolute rule by the king by forcing him to accept the Bayonet Constitution and agreeing to constitutional government with a powerful parliament. The new constitution gave voting rights only for Hawaiians, Americans, and Europeans, and thus denied rights for Japanese and other Asians. The Japanese commissioner worked to pressure the Kingdom to restore the rights of Japanese by amending the constitution. In 1893 the Hawaiian Monarchy was overthrown, Tokyo responded by appointing Captain Tōgō Heihachirō to command the Japanese naval activities in Hawaii. The HIJMS Naniwa was sent immediately to Hawaii to rendezvous with the HIJMS Kongō which had been on a training mission.
Hawaii could have been Japan's rightful clay.
>>1222629
Territory
>>1222671
Which is not a state. Are you autistic by any chance?
>>1222659
And just to be clear Victoria Kaiulani was crown princess and would have assumed the throne if her aunt did not get deposed. Higashifushimi Yorihito was not even eligible to ascend the throne unless every last member of the main family line died.
>>1222420
Of course they went to shit, colonies were designed for resource and labor exploitation, nothing else. The colonial powers didn't give two fucks about their colonial subjects only that they provided labor and manpower for conflicts.
>>1213818
>muh nukes is so bad!
Those fucking 2 bombs weren't shit compared to the tons of incendiary bombs dropped throughout the war on, both, Germany AND Japan.
>>1222177
>Hegemony
Yes, the Philippines is totally Brown Anglo-Saxon Protestant land.
Just because the Philippines has a good relationship with it's erstwhile colonial masters does not make them lelslaves, Chang/Takeshi/Whatever.
>>1221988
All Philippine presidents are backed by the US.
The chick that replaced Marcos, Aquino, received air support from the USA when right wing Flips held a coup.
>>1213818
NEVER FORGET PEARL HARBOR
GOD IS PUNISHING YOU BY BLOWING UP YOUR NUCLEAR PLANTS
JUSTICE FOR PEARL HARBOR
>>1214619
>akschually bringing up facts in the face of fallacy is *tip tip tip* fedora business :DD::D:D
>>1216427
The japanese had accepted to surrender on the exact same turns before the bombing, as they surrendered after the bombing.
Nothing was gained.
>>1223313
And the fact they surrendered isn't meaningful?
The fact is that the Japanese army was planning a coups against the emperor in case of surrender. The devastation from two nuclear weapons was surely a huge blow to morale as the Japanese had no idea how many more might come. It undoubtedly had a quelling effect on the possibility of such a coups that would have greatly increased American casualties.
>>1223329
>And the fact they surrendered isn't meaningful?
The fact that they surrendered came BEFORE the nukes.
Japan accepted the exact same terms BEFORE the nukes were dropped.
And no, the people who considered the emperor to be a literal god, and who were throwing their lives away from him, are unlikely to have scored a coup.
And even if they did, THAT is when you nuke, on the off chance of an off chance, not by default.
The nukes were clearly used to get a few more diplomatic points for the upcoming division of Europe between USA and USSR.
There is no other reason. Its not moral, its not ethical, stop trying to excuse it.
>>1223313
>The japanese had accepted to surrender on the exact same turns before the bombing,
No they didn't
>>1223313
Show me that the Japanese unconditionally surrendered before the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
>>1223334
>The fact that they surrendered came BEFORE the nukes.
[citation needed]
>>1223336
>>1223338
>>1223348
>Navy Secretary James Forrestal termed the intercepted messages "real evidence of a Japanese desire to get out of the war." "With the interception of these messages," notes historian Alperovitz (p. 177), "there could no longer be any real doubt as to the Japanese intentions; the maneuvers were overt and explicit and, most of all, official acts. Koichi Kido, Japan's Lord Privy Seal and a close advisor to the Emperor, later affirmed: "Our decision to seek a way out of this war, was made in early June before any atomic bomb had been dropped and Russia had not entered the war. It was already our decision."
>In spite of this, on July 26 the leaders of the United States and Britain issued the Potsdam declaration, which included this grim ultimatum: "We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces and to provide proper and adequate assurance of good faith in such action. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction."
>Commenting on this draconian either-or proclamation, British historian J.F.C. Fuller wrote: "Not a word was said about the Emperor, because it would be unacceptable to the propaganda-fed American masses." (A Military History of the Western World [1987], p. 675.)
>America's leaders understood Japan's desperate position: the Japanese were willing to end the war on any terms, as long as the Emperor was not molested. If the US leadership had not insisted on unconditional surrender -- that is, if they had made clear a willingness to permit the Emperor to remain in place -- the Japanese very likely would have surrendered immediately, thus saving many thousands of lives.
>The sad irony is that, as it actually turned out, the American leaders decided anyway to retain the Emperor as a symbol of authority and continuity. They realized, correctly, that Hirohito was useful as a figurehead prop for their own occupation authority in postwar Japan.
>>1223350
Unconditional surrender, and emperor keeps his status.
This was accepted before the nukes, and this was what happened after the nukes.
>>1223351
>This was accepted before the nukes
It wasn't a surrender. Get over it.
>>1223353
You are rationalizing your brainwashing instead of fighting it.
>>1223356
You're literally saying things happened which didn't happen. There was no surrender.
>>1223350
Gotta love them enormous leaps the biased author makes.
The Japs wanted to keep Korea, their puppet "civilian" government, refuse allied troops access to the home islands, and conduct war crimes trials on their own by their own. This is what they considered within the regime
>>1223360
Nigger, learn history. The Supreme Council had already begun meeting to discuss surrender when news of the bomb in Nagasaki reached.
Stop rationalizing and look at the facts. "There was no surrender", no shit. It wasn't accepted by the USA. They wanted to bomb them and only after talk of surrender. The bombs were planned, and wouldn't be avoided, regardless of Japanese surrender.
>>1223365
Fuck off weeb
>>1223366
Nice argument.
>>1223367
You have no argument
>>1223370
The Supreme Council had already begun meeting to discuss surrender when news of the bomb in Nagasaki reached.
They were already surrendering before they even learned of the Nagasaki bomb.
Argue that first, then we can move along if you show promise.
