We will not forget the casualties, pain, and suffering that the Japanese imperialist regime imposed on the Chinese people. Any attempt to deny or cover-up this tragedy will be met with strongest condemnation.
We will not forget the casualties, pain, and suffering that the Japanese imperialist regime imposed on the Chinese people. Any attempt to deny or cover-up this tragedy will be met with strongest condemnation.
Fuck you there's no moral, ethical, logical, or reasonable justification for America nuking civilian populations.
deleted by creator
Civilians, politicians, business leaders, vital industry and the Japanese military all existed in the City of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This argument doesn't work.
Removed by mod
An invasion of Japan was never actually on the table. The surrender of Japan prevented Soviet troops from moving into (and most likely annexing) Nanjing, not US troops landing in Japan. The USSR getting Nanjing and the Kuriles back was part of the agreement at Yalta - it was what Roosevelt promised Stalin in return for his agreement to declare war on Japan 2-3 months after Germany's surrender. Stalin later renewed his agreement to attack the Japanese in negotiations with Truman at the Potsdam conference, mere days before the first nuke fell. BTW, at that point, Japan was firmly convinced that the USSR would not only remain neutral, but side with Japan and negotiate a favorable peace deal for them. They were entirely delusional about Stalin's stance, they got told so repeatedly by their ambassador in Moscow, and the allies could freely listen in on any of that because they had cracked Japanese encryption. It was abundantly clear that the USSR declaring war on Japan would have been a complete game changer far surpassing the military impact of the bombings. Meanwhile, the allies had formed a full naval blockade of the Japanese islands, completely controlled the Japanese airspace and had reduced the imperial navy to being almost entirely nonexistent due to lack of fuel. Japan didn't have a chance at that point at all. They were completely fucked and the US knew this.
The entire ground invasion narrative was made up retroactively to justify the bombings, for which Japan had been selected as a target as early as 1943. The US wanted to show off its new superweapon, they decided from the very start of the Manhattan project that they wanted to do that on the Japanese, not the Germans, due to a mix of racism and revanchism for Pearl Harbor, they also saw this as part of a containment strategy against Stalin and they specifically sought out largely unbombed, densely built population centers instead of military installations to make sure that the bombs would demonstrate their full destructive potential by flattening as many buildings as possible.
The idea that Truman's government, which was racist as fuck against East Asians, would have done any of that to help Chinese and Korean peasants, when they routinely painted Japanese as bucktoothed goblins, is honestly kinda ridiculous.
I'm not saying that to write off the reasoning that the bombings may have actually saved lives in Manchuria and other occupied areas as an entirely unintended side effect. That's a different conversation, and a more difficult one than this one. But the potential land invasion is 100% US propaganda and shouldn't even be part of such discussions here. Americans tell this narrative to their school kids for a reason, and it's definitely not compassion with Chinese people.
I'm not arguing that the Japanese weren't fucked, but if mainland Japan had been blockaded, what do you think would have happened? Would they have gone "Well guess we lost lads, lets pack it up" or would they do what they were already doing and impose even harsher rationing on their civilians to feed their military to the bitter end? Given than one nuke wasn't enough to convince them to surrender, and Japanese veterans were found throughout the Pacific still continuing the fight as late as the 1970s, it's not hard to see what the answer is.
I'm not saying the US are good, or that the nukes were a good thing. I'm saying that the lives lost from the nukes, in my understanding, pale in comparison to the probable loss of life if the nukes hadn't been used.
Get fucked you cunt there's no moral, ethical, logical, or reasonable justification for America nuking civilian populations.
The choice was between nuking them or wait another few months of waiting the struggling japanese surrender unconditionally. Shaun just made a video documentary about it this week.
Even after the first nuke, the Japanese military command nearly coup'd the Emperor because he was considering surrender. There is no way that they would have surrendered after "a few more months".
Also I'm sure the people being butchered across Manchuria would really appreciate your lets-not-do-anything-mean-during-a-war tactic. "Sorry guys, I know they're literally raping women by the thousands and killing children, but these nukes are awfully loud"
Oh you're right, i firgot te japanese still had continental control.
Still completely unnecessary. "Military command" was not united against surrendering. Many were actively trying to surrender, conditionally or not. The nukes could also been dropped in unpopulated areas, or coastal sea. The soviets were at most two months away from liberating manchuria and korea, who were already materially cut off from japan.
How many civilians in Manchuria would you consider is acceptable to be murdered/raped/tortured before you thought dropping the nukes was acceptable? Also materially cut off doesn't matter when they controlled so much of Manchuria that they could have kept themselves reasonably supplied just from those regions.
I've not seen anything about Japan wanting to surrender unconditionally until after the second nuke. AFAIK they wanted to keep their overseas territories which would have meant a continued genocide.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_during_the_occupation_of_Japan#Rapes_by_U.S._forces
ok?
no it's not okay
Wow you really showed me, here I was completely arguing in favour of rape and you just blew my argument apart. Good job.
Thank you, I'm glad you were able to learn and grow from this interaction
Nope, nukes were still the best of a bunch of bad choices.
[citation needed]
Years of fallout induced birth defects and rapes by occupying yankees was not the 'best of a bunch of bad choices.'
Yeah, allowing the continued rape of Manchuria and then starving the civilian population of Japan, and then probably a land invasion with brutal urban warfare and anti-guerilla operations (because America always handles guerilla insurrections really well) would have been a much better option.
Japanese leadership was on the verge of surrendering to the soviets, which would've ended the war in manchuria without the annihilation of the civilian populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
imo the JCP being in power would be infinitely preferable to the US rape occupation which continues to this day
I implore you to begin reading history from non-western/non-liberal sources
No they weren't. Maybe in Manchuria but certainly not mainland Japan, the Soviets didn't have the naval capability to launch an invasion of mainland Japan.
source?
For what? Soviet Naval capacity? Well there's Project Hula https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Hula where the US had to provide naval vessels to the Soviets. Not to mention that even after that there was no guarantee that the Soviets would have been able to protect a naval invasion.
For the Japanese not wanting to surrender, they were refusing to surrender after the second nuke and threatened to overthrow the Emperor if he tried to surrender. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ky%C5%ABj%C5%8D_incident
Removed by mod
The war crime understander has logged on. You see in order to stop a war crime we just need to commit another war crime! Brilliant I agree, I think you should join the army IRL you'll fit right in.
Lmao at the fragility of Western leftists. A Chinese person asking questions on Nanjing memorial day has to have his post deleted.
I guess any amount of Chinese people dying is preferable to white leftists having to answer uncomfortable questions.
Just baby brained lol.
Why not glass entire sections of the planet? Why not just send us into nuclear apocalypse?
Because at the time there were no other nukes. I don't support nuking anywhere now, but at the time, in that exact circumstance, I believe it was the best option.
Less suffering that allowing the occupation of Manchuria to continue
Less suffering than an invasion of Japan
Less suffering than blockading and starving them out
A brutal and horrible thing, but ultimately necessary.
This is psychotic go fuck yourself
Ah yes, choosing the option that I think is less harmful to the most people is psychotic.