• empty_signifier [they/them]
    ·
    4 years ago

    The most irritating part is that what the skull man says is historical consensus. There's literally no debate by any legitimate historians about any of it.

  • artangels [he/him]
    ·
    4 years ago

    this is a huge argument of contention with my dad. we always get into it in regard to the bombings of hiroshima and nagasaki. i told him to go and talk to the people who live there and see how they feel about it. a lot of liberals like to do the whole "nuance" concern trolling to glaze over american war crimes.

  • redthebaron [he/him]
    ·
    4 years ago

    there is literal no point for the bombs other than looking strong in front of the soviets, the japanese navy could not hold itself against the american which is what the whole pearl harbour thing was about, and japan could not do a war against the whole world and they were aware of it they staged a fucking inciting event to justify the war on china as defensive like there is no way that could not have been solved diplomatic the bombs were just cruelty

    • TheBroodian [none/use name]
      ·
      4 years ago

      Not only cruelty, it also caused Japan to surrender to the USA, rather than to the Soviet Union, which ultimately led to the preservation of the Emperor, and of the system that keeps an Emperor as head.

      • redthebaron [he/him]
        ·
        4 years ago

        ALSO THEY LITERALLY COULD HAVE HIT MILITARY TARGETS INSTEAD OF A FUCKING CITY IT WOULD HAVE HAD THE SAME EFFECT the narrative that the soviet union saved the world during world war 2 would be tougher to argue against if they had both taken berlin and japan so the american move is just a geopolitical power move , i think the speech that the emperor gives on the terms of surrender describe it perfectly

        "Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should we continue to fight, it would not only result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization."

    • VILenin [he/him]
      ·
      4 years ago

      But you see, he deserved it, because otherwise a bajillion american lives would have been lost because we would've had to invade the mainland even though they were already going to surrender because uhh reasons

  • kundun_i_liked_it [none/use name]
    ·
    4 years ago

    Lmao the post doesn't disprove shit:

    So the first element of the tweet, that Truman and "his advisors" thought that the war would be over before an invasion was necessary. This is true to an extent - a number of senior American military personnel did indeed think that the bombs were unnecessary, and that Japan would surrender.

    Also love this passive aggressive paragraph:

    Shaun did not source his tweet, but a commonly cited source is this site, which contains a set of quotes from senior American military and government officials about the atomic bomb. I'm going to take the liberty of using it to provide the sources that Shaun did not

    • Phish [he/him, any]
      ·
      4 years ago

      I mean they did surrender right after that. Kind of proves that theory wrong.

    • HarryLime [any]
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 years ago

      They were actually training women and children to fight American soldiers with bamboo spears. That's not made up. The Japanese military oligarchy was certifiably insane.

        • HarryLime [any]
          ·
          4 years ago

          People will do very extreme things when their homeland is invaded. Look at how fierce Soviet resistance was to the Nazis.

        • Perplexiglass [they/them]
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          4 years ago

          I think they would. Consider Kamikaze pilots. Or stories of stranded soldiers in the Pacific who never accepted surrender. It was religious.

          • russianattack [he/him]
            ·
            4 years ago

            Neither of those are remotely similar.

            How about consider every other war before and since has ended without nuclear bombs.

            • Perplexiglass [they/them]
              ·
              4 years ago

              Not sure if you meant to reply to me, but I was talking about Japanese civilians being ready to fight, not deploying nukes.

              • CarlTheRedditor [he/him]
                ·
                4 years ago

                The two examples you cited aren't about civilians, though. So you're implying that civilian and military culture were identical, and you're doing so with no evidence.

        • HarryLime [any]
          ·
          4 years ago

          The unconditional surrender wasn't a wrong demand. It's worse that the US demanded unconditional surrender and then McArthur didn't even accept Hirohito's resignation when it was offered, and manipulated the war crimes trials to completely absolve him and the Imperial family of any guilt.

  • hexagon_bear [any]
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 years ago

    Here's the /r/badhistory OP comparing Sanders to a disease.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/youtubehaiku/comments/fbtyus/haiku_2020_so_far/fj6q7by/