Support NeoGAF

[AJUMP23]

It was not necessary at all, Japan was beaten, USSR was moving all tank divisions to the Eastern front ready to steamroll the Japanese.
The fuck did you guys study at school?

While it is true Japan would eventually los le the war either way, dropping atomic weapons on Japan saved American soldiers life. I think it was the right decision to use them. Japan would have had to have been taken island by island then town by town until the US finally took their god emperor into custody. It would have probably taken another year and hundreds of thousands more lives.

destroying Japan and breaking their resolve in war also allowed Japan to rebuild into the technical and manufacturing marvel it is today.

 

[Hari Seldon]

Japan was so encredibly evil that there was absolutely zero chance that any democratically elected leader would not have used nukes on them. Sparing the emperor turned out to be the right move but if actual justice had happened he deserved to be executed just as much as the most depraved Nazi.

 

[Hulk_Smash]

They called it quits after the first bomb. But the generals refused to aceept defeat and attempted to stall the emperor’s acceptance of defeat. Without a clear surrender, the US bombed again.

People also seem to forget that days prior to the bombs dropping, they covered both cities with flyers warning the civilians to leave the cities or they would die in the bombing. Can you imagine Germany or Japan giving their enemies the luxury of a warning if the roles were reversed?

 

[StreetsofBeige]

I remember learning about Imperial Japan during World War II and our history teacher went into detail about the Nanking Massacre and Unit 731. Absolutely gut-wrenching.

But the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a kind of necessary evil to end the war sooner, or else the U.S. and allies would have invaded Japan and more lives would have been lost along with more uses of nuclear weapons.

I never followed Japan during WWII articles and only learned about the chaotic imperial Japan stuff from the net.

The only thing you really hear about Japan in WWII in popular media are popular sea battles, Peral Harbour, Iwo Jima (great movie) and atomic bombs. Some reason you never get the media showcasing all the atrocities Japan did against neighbouring Asian countries, but Germany gets nailed to cross about Holocaust.

Both are total evil atrocities, but the German one gets singled out.

People bring up Soviets being winner if it dragged on making the surrender. Maybe. But it's good USA did it. If Soviets took over, they'd probably turn Japan into East Germany. Americans bombing them making them call it quits lead to a peaceful economic powerhouse Japan.

Like I said in my first sentence, I don't think many people know Japan was ruthless long time ago. They just know them as cars and electronics on a peaceful island.

 

[ManaByte]

Like I said in my first sentence, I don't think many people know Japan was ruthless long time ago. They just know them as cars and electronics on a peaceful island.

Exactly this. And there are some examples of it in this thread.

 

[Coolwhhip]

To me it seems America "won" the world simply by being the richest and biggest country in the world for decades. And that might change with China rising up, so eh.

 

[llien]

it wasn't a one country show, the US was leading the western bloc and NATO.

NATO didn't exist back in times I was referring to and US was the overwhelming power in that block anyhow, arguably, for reasons mentioned above,, namely, technological, scientific and manufacturing superiority but certainly not for killing 200k civilians with 2 nukes.

 

[Relativ9]

As far as inventions that changed the world immeasurably...the humble chemical fertilizer would throw the a-bomb into the gutter.

 

[llien]

While it is true Japan would eventually los le the war either way, dropping atomic weapons on Japan saved American soldiers life.

I'm trying real REAL hard to imagine the world your way, but I fail, could you help me?

So Japan has lost pretty much all non-mainland Japan (so, sits on zero resources), of which, losing it's gains in China took mere couple of weeks.

So, from this perspective:

1) what was "the plan" of whoever was in power in Japan at this point?
2) what did nuking Nagasaki on 9th of August (Hiroshima was nuked on 6th) exactly demonstrate to those fucks? Note that it's not like Japan surrendered on 10th of August. Or on 11th. Or 12th. Or 13th. Or... OK you got the idea.

 

[llien]

They called it quits after the first bomb. But the generals refused to aceept defeat and attempted to stall the emperor’s acceptance of defeat.

Citation needed, hopefully with explanation of what that "end game" was for those "generals", what kind of outcome were they contemplating.

Also explanation of why US didn't bomb on 12th (if we are into 3 day cadence)

 

[ManaByte]

Citation needed, hopefully with explanation of what that "end game" was for those "generals", what kind of outcome were they contemplating.

Also explanation of why US didn't bomb on 12th (if we are into 3 day cadence)

I know you like to disengenously ignore recorded history but there wasn't a bombing on the 12th for two reasons:

1. Nagasaki was originally going to be on August 12th but was moved forward due to a five day period of bad weather.
2. A third bomb was being prepared but Truman ordered it to not be deployed unless on his direct order.

If Japan hadn't surrendered and Operation Downfall was activated we would've seen that third (and possibly a fourth) bomb used.

 

[AJUMP23]

So, from this perspective:

1) what was "the plan" of whoever was in power in Japan at this point?
2) what did nuking Nagasaki on 9th of August (Hiroshima was nuked on 6th) exactly demonstrate to those fucks? Note that it's not like Japan surrendered on 10th of August. Or on 11th. Or 12th. Or 13th. Or... OK you got the idea.

. 1. The plan of the military leaders was to use the entire population to fight. US troops in the mainland would create a battle against civilian combatants.

2. from what I have read the emperor would have surrendered after the first bomb but the military leadership would not let him.

 

[ManaByte]

2. from what I have read the emperor would have surrendered after the first bomb but the military leadership would not let him.

They believed that America only had another one or two bombs and they would just take the hits and keep fighting.

 

[nkarafo]

One bomb wasn't enough apparently.

They needed to test the new design because the gun type bomb was not efficient enough.

 

[highrider]

And let me cite american (!!!) historian Martin J Sherwin: "The evidence has become overwhelming that it was the entry of the Soviet Union on 8 August into the war against Japan that forced surrender but, understandably, this view is very difficult for Americans to accept."

oh boy. I knew this thread would be entertaining. Stunning how ignorant of history current education is. Japan was on the brink of losing everything. Atomic bomb saved them from themselves. They were beaten, only fighting for honor.

 

[QSD]

Is the OP asking about the outcome of the cold war? Because I'd argue that America/the west gained dominance in no small part due to "soft power", e.g. movies, music, comics, etc etc more than military might.

 

[Torrent of Pork]

You reap what you sow, and in 1945 the Japanese reaped hellfire.

 

[Amiga]

Is the OP asking about the outcome of the cold war? Because I'd argue that America/the west gained dominance in no small part due to "soft power", e.g. movies, music, comics, etc etc more than military might.

there was hard power. plenty of it. it was used in proxy wars. South Korea would've been dominated by Pyongyang. more Castros would've ruled in Latin America. Afghanistan, Vietnam, Middle East... NATO kept the USSR from directly pushing into Europe.

the Western bloc grew economically but the USSR continued to deteriorate. there wasn't enough horizontal skill growth in the population. and centralized bureaucracies slowed growth. control of small group of aged leaders stopped evolving the system. (the CCP learned from these mistakes and periodically changed leadership, focused a lot of resources on developing the regions and improving the skills of the population).

and the Eastern bloc did have soft power. lots of those movies/comics..etc were made by socialists who sympathized with the communists over their own countries.

 

[QSD]

and the Eastern bloc did have soft power. lots of those movies/comics..etc were made by socialists who sympathized with the communists over their own countries.

I can't really comment that much on the historical stuff. But I really don't know what you are talking about here. The eastern bloc abounds with stories of people who treasured the one Queen or Abba or Depeche Mode tape they managed to get a hold of somehow.

This whole "traitors among us" narrative here is wildly off base, what the hell is socialist about Queen? Or Chuck Berry? The only bands that are really big and have an explicit political message that I can think of are Rage Against The Machine and Public Enemy, and both only got popular once the cold war had essentially already been won.

 

[nightmare-slain]

it was a significant point in history but america didn't win anything by dropping those bombs. it was one of the most disgusting acts in human history and is nothing to be proud of.

 

[tsumake]

I can't really comment that much on the historical stuff. But I really don't know what you are talking about here. The eastern bloc abounds with stories of people who treasured the one Queen or Abba or Depeche Mode tape they managed to get a hold of somehow.

This whole "traitors among us" narrative here is wildly off base, what the hell is socialist about Queen? Or Chuck Berry? The only bands that are really big and have an explicit political message that I can think of are Rage Against The Machine and Public Enemy, and both only got popular once the cold war had essentially already been won.

Right. It was only after the Cold War where Cultural Marxism started to have a legitimate hold on mainstream media. And even then it was a slow percolation. It took decades to get to its current saturation.

The irony is this current dialectic variant is essentially shunned in the former Soviet states while it is gaining traction in the West.

 

[Amiga]

I can't really comment that much on the historical stuff. But I really don't know what you are talking about here. The eastern bloc abounds with stories of people who treasured the one Queen or Abba or Depeche Mode tape they managed to get a hold of somehow.

This whole "traitors among us" narrative here is wildly off base, what the hell is socialist about Queen? Or Chuck Berry? The only bands that are really big and have an explicit political message that I can think of are Rage Against The Machine and Public Enemy, and both only got popular once the cold war had essentially already been won.

Lennon was far left. in the Middle East where I'm from and grow up during the cold war literature and education was overwhelmingly dominated by socialists. American universities got more and more socialist professors. so "softpower" wasn't a one-sided advantage. each bloc had parts of the population that sympathized with the other side.

 

[tsumake]

Lennon was far left. in the Middle East where I'm from and grow up during the cold war literature and education was overwhelmingly dominated by socialists. American universities got more and more socialist professors. so "softpower" wasn't a one-sided advantage. each bloc had parts of the population that sympathized with the other side.

I think you mean “Lenin.” Unless you’re talking about



EDIT: My mistake. I misread your post. I think Lennon was more a nonconformist if anything. Though you could argue that his ideas could have led to dreadful form of conformity.

 

[highrider]

it was a significant point in history but america didn't win anything by dropping those bombs. it was one of the most disgusting acts in human history and is nothing to be proud of.

That’s a foolish interpretation of history. Japan was a proven tyrannical power with designs on the west and beyond. We would have had to slaughter millions in a conventional war of attrition with Japan. They were not going to surrender until faced with superior destructive power. It’s nothing to be proud of I agree, but it’s a hard decision and a correct one.

 

[Amiga]

I think you mean “Lenin.” Unless you’re talking about



EDIT: My mistake. I misread your post. I think Lennon was more a nonconformist if anything. Though you could argue that his ideas could have led to dreadful form of conformity.

Yes, Lennon.
"no country", "no religion" and "no possession" are very specific.

 

[Kenpachii]

To me it seems America "won" the world simply by being the richest and biggest country in the world for decades. And that might change with China rising up, so eh.

Geographically they are in a good spot. South is never a danger towards them same for north. They have a relative safe place where they can do whatever they want in all comfort without much danger.

 

[Amiga]

Geographically they are in a good spot. South is never a danger towards them same for north. They have a relative safe place where they can do whatever they want in all comfort without much danger.

there was the Cuban missile thing. and covert-ops made sure the south wouldn't become a problem. so there was actual work done.

 

[QSD]

Yes, Lennon.
"no country", "no religion" and "no possession" are very specific.

so let's just post that bit of obvious marxist propaganda here in full:

Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us, only sky
Imagine all the people
Livin' for today
Ah
Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion, too
Imagine all the people
Livin' life in peace
You
You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one
Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world
You
You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one

If you read this, and the main thing you get from it is somehow that he's itching to start a violent revolution to overthrow the bourgeoisie, instead of him trying to show you a different, less competitive and tribal way of looking at the world, then I really don't know what to tell you. Maybe because you grew up in the middle east your experience of it is different, I guess I could understand that. But to me, this is just an advertisement for a more contemplative approach to life.

 

[Amiga]

so let's just post that bit of obvious marxist propaganda here in full:

Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us, only sky
Imagine all the people
Livin' for today
Ah
Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion, too
Imagine all the people
Livin' life in peace
You
You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one
Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world
You
You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one

If you read this, and the main thing you get from it is somehow that he's itching to start a violent revolution to overthrow the bourgeoisie, instead of him trying to show you a different, less competitive and tribal way of looking at the world, then I really don't know what to tell you. Maybe because you grew up in the middle east your experience of it is different, I guess I could understand that. But to me, this is just an advertisement for a more contemplative approach to life.

I'm talking about ideology, not the means different groups who have the ideology apply.
"no country", "no religion" and "no possession" is the consistent propaganda with Marxists. he is an artists and he used his method.
others in Europe during his time chose bombs. the USSR used tanks in East Europe. Stalin killed millions as he tried to reconstruct culture in pursuit of the union without religion or possession. the Western bloc hardly relied on movies/comics and didn't play softball in Afghanistan/South America. the West won that round because the model was more sustainable. romanticizing about heroes villains is irrelevant.

 

[Taxexemption]

There is an assumption inherent in the question that nuclear bombs actually exist. I don't think there is sufficient evidence, I think it's a scam. I'm pretty sure if nuclear weapons actually existed one country would have nuked another off the face of the earth by now. Also why are major powers so free to cause mischief with each other and do things that risk war if it might result in a nuclear war? I think it was theatrics. That's not to say that people weren't killed in a large explosion in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I just don't think any nuclear weapons exist or were involved. I think the major powers don't fear war with each other as much as they should because they all know they are full of it about having huge amounts of nuclear weapons. I've heard that a lot of generals have advised previous presidents that we should have pre-emptively struck Russia with nuclear weapons. Maybe the only reason we never did is because none ever existed in the first place.

 

[Pol Pot]

There is an assumption inherent in the question that nuclear bombs actually exist. I don't think there is sufficient evidence, I think it's a scam. I'm pretty sure if nuclear weapons actually existed one country would have nuked another off the face of the earth by now. Also why are major powers so free to cause mischief with each other and do things that risk war if it might result in a nuclear war? I think it was theatrics. That's not to say that people weren't killed in a large explosion in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I just don't think any nuclear weapons exist or were involved. I think the major powers don't fear war with each other as much as they should because they all know they are full of it about having huge amounts of nuclear weapons. I've heard that a lot of generals have advised previous presidents that we should have pre-emptively struck Russia with nuclear weapons. Maybe the only reason we never did is because none ever existed in the first place.

Huh

 

[IDKFA]

I'm at a loss how we can discuss this in depth without bringing politics. I'm happy to weigh in, but I don't want to get banned for discussing politics.

 

[Taxexemption]

Huh

Nice youtube link. You don't think they could fake that with Hollywood special effects? What if it's just a really big bomb, but the potential devastation/effects are being greatly exaggerated?

 

[Pol Pot]

Nice youtube link. You don't think they could fake that with Hollywood special effects? What if it's just a really big bomb, but the potential devastation/effects are being greatly exaggerated?

No.

 

[ManaByte]

There is an assumption inherent in the question that nuclear bombs actually exist. I don't think there is sufficient evidence, I think it's a scam. I'm pretty sure if nuclear weapons actually existed one country would have nuked another off the face of the earth by now. Also why are major powers so free to cause mischief with each other and do things that risk war if it might result in a nuclear war? I think it was theatrics. That's not to say that people weren't killed in a large explosion in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I just don't think any nuclear weapons exist or were involved. I think the major powers don't fear war with each other as much as they should because they all know they are full of it about having huge amounts of nuclear weapons. I've heard that a lot of generals have advised previous presidents that we should have pre-emptively struck Russia with nuclear weapons. Maybe the only reason we never did is because none ever existed in the first place.

 

[Julius Ibidus]

so this thread has turned into an A-Bomb conspiracy thread? amazing!

 

[celsowmbr]

You played too much Wolfstein and Fallout

 

[Tschumi]

I mean the incoherence of the op is itself a rebuttal of his premise.

I live in Japan and you can take your historically distant blase view of those atrocities and shove it up your arse.

 

[tsumake]

I mean the incoherence of the op is itself a rebuttal of his premise.

I live in Japan and you can take your historically distant blase view of those atrocities and shove it up your arse.

Oh cool. Ever been to Nanjing?

 

[godhandiscen]

Nah, I’d argue it was Hollywood, and yes I’m being serious.

Cultural exportation is a symptom of a strong economy, which was the result of other reasons presented in this thread. In the end, the USA became the number one super power, unchallenged for many decades, due to multiple reasons.

 

[AJUMP23]

America rebuilding everything the war destroyed had more to do with becoming a world power.

 

[Tschumi]

Oh cool. Ever been to Nanjing?

Actually yes lol, i lived in China for 5 years and played sports tournaments at their international school

 

[German Hops]

You reap what you sow, and in 1945 the Japanese reaped hellfire.

The bomb should have been used on the Germans, in my opinion.

 

[Porcile]

I dont know but the British Empire did a lot of crazy shit that people across the globe still feel the effects and repurcussions of to this day.

 

[IDKFA]

There is an assumption inherent in the question that nuclear bombs actually exist. I don't think there is sufficient evidence, I think it's a scam. I'm pretty sure if nuclear weapons actually existed one country would have nuked another off the face of the earth by now. Also why are major powers so free to cause mischief with each other and do things that risk war if it might result in a nuclear war? I think it was theatrics. That's not to say that people weren't killed in a large explosion in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I just don't think any nuclear weapons exist or were involved. I think the major powers don't fear war with each other as much as they should because they all know they are full of it about having huge amounts of nuclear weapons. I've heard that a lot of generals have advised previous presidents that we should have pre-emptively struck Russia with nuclear weapons. Maybe the only reason we never did is because none ever existed in the first place.

The bombs that hit Japan in 1945 were not just "really big bombs". They were nukes.

As well as the initial destruction, many of the survivors afterwards suffered leukemia, cancer, or other side effects from the radiation. Are you saying all of this was a hoax as well?

 

[INC]

Wait theres a conspiracy that nukes have never been dropped or exist?

Well the people of Japan must feel pretty silly right about now, peoples shadows being left on walls due to the flash off the bomb, must be make believe, and painted in after

 

[MisterFalcon]

It's pretty unlikely the Soviets could have mounted any sort of invasion of the Japanese home island for at least a year after they declared war. The one attempt they made at Shumshu, across a narrow stretch of water and supported by artillery from across that water they lost most of their landing craft and twice the casualties of the Japanese. The Soviet Navy had no carriers, no battleships, no fire support experience, no landing craft beyond what the US gave them and their Air Force had no long range fighters to cross the sea to protect any landings. The Red Army was crushingly superior anywhere you could drive a T-34 to as was shown in Manchuria but they cannot swim.

The lack of faith in their own capabilities was most clearly shown when the Soviets decided not so land any forces in Hokkaido even after the Japanese surrendered to participate in the occupation, knowing that if any Japanese decided to fight on their troops would be stuck there and isolated far too long before any reinforcements could be sent.

 

[QSD]

I'm talking about ideology, not the means different groups who have the ideology apply.
"no country", "no religion" and "no possession" is the consistent propaganda with Marxists. he is an artists and he used his method.

Dude by this logic, 'Let's stay together' by Al Green and 'One Love' by Bob Marley are marxist propaganda because they oppose individualism.
Not every song is an ideological or political statement.

 

[nush]

Actually yes lol, i lived in China for 5 years and played sports tournaments at their international school

Watch out for these posters and their single digit years they lived in China. The higher number of years you've lived in China the more right you are. Calling all 6 years in China people to disagree with him, who will be correct because of +1.

 

[gunslikewhoa]

yes, when your homeland is directly threatened you do indeed form a 'resolve' to protect it at all costs. just ask Hannibal about that one. it's the reason (that 'resolve') you're speaking the language you are right now.

And we weren't even attempting to conquer them and take their nation. All the crazy bastards had to do was surrender.