Maybe an overuse question, but do you think Japan deserved to get nuked in ww2?

Maybe an overuse question, but… do you think Japan deserved to get nuked in ww2? I’ve had a lot of discussions about this since I’m really interested in Japanese history and I’m still not sure about it myself

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    In the words of Mitsuo Fuchida, an IJN captain who participated in the attack on Pearl Harbor and after the war became a Christian missionary:
    You did the right thing. You know the Japanese attitude at that time, how fanatic they were, they'd die for the Emperor [...] Every man, woman, and child would have resisted that invasion with sticks and stones if necessary [...] Can you imagine what a slaughter it would be to invade Japan? It would have been terrible. The Japanese people know more about that than the American public will ever know.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Allied bombing of civilians in general is heavily debated even today since they mostly failed with their primary objective, to damage and ultimately collapse public support for the regime, instead it merely strengthen resolve, and caused millionss of civilian deaths.

      That was not the case with the nuclear bombs however, ironically they actually succeeded in their purpose where the horrific firebombings had failed. Japan did surrender, and historians point to the fact that the nuclear bombs even helped Japan surrender.
      The politicians wanted to end the war, but the military said no. It was hard for the Japanese politicians to reason surrender as a consequence of social and economic collapse (starvation and exposure from no food or fuel imports thanks to total American blockade). The nuclear bombs however provided a more legitimate reason to surrender which the army could find acceptable.

      Another important point is that both Japan and Germany had in terms of international law, forfeit the ethics of civilian bombing when the Japanese had bombed Chinese civilians, and the Germans Polish and Dutch cities. To ask why gas was never used in ww2 is the same answer: The axis never broke international law by using it against the allies, so thus vice versa.

      Correct. Okinawa, one of the bloodiest battles in history, was a trailer of what an attack on the mainland would have looked like.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        It is also important to point out, that far more people died from allied bombing than in the nuclear strike. There were instances when a single raid could cause nearly the same amount of civilian deaths as at Hiroshima.

  2. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    ABSOLUTELY NOT!
    The bombs were a complete overuse of force and the Japanese were ready to surrender because of the Soviet Union declaring war on the Island. It is clear that the US only used the nuclear bombs as a media campaign against any would be competitors of them after the war at the expense of Japanese lives. Remember they used two bombs when one would suffice and didn't even target military or industrial locations.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >Japanese were ready to surrender
      Hirohito listed the nuclear bombings explicitly as a cause of surrender in his broadcast but didn't even mention the Soviets.

      >Two bombs when one would suffice
      The Japanese war cabinet decided to go on with the war after Hiroshima because they thought the Americans had no more bombs

      >Didn't even target military or industrial locations
      Hiroshima was an industrial center and housed the headquarters of the defense command for southern Japan. Nagasaki was an important military port, shipbuilding site, and had a massive munitions factory.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      The surrender was approved before the Soviet invasion even began. A simple read on Wikipedia would make you look less of an idiot.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      how's high school treating you

  3. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >Maybe an overuse question,
    It is

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Oh whao no shit?

  4. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Obviously not, thinking random civilians "deserve" to get killed is psychotic.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      But a lot of people view it as justified since it caused Japan to surrender. In the end it was just a well executed war crime eh?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        It caused Japan to unconditionally surrender solely to the USA. Japan was already going to surrender, but they wanted terms, a lot of which were ironically given in the unconditional surrender, minus the sovereign empire bit. Once Soviet boots were on the ground, they would have wanted a seat at the negotiating table despite contributing nothing.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >But a lot of people view it as justified
        "Was it justified under the circumstances" is a very different discussion than "did they deserve it".

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Why? They live in a war economy and their country is at war and they are losing. Most of them supported the war. If they are casualities of war, any guilt I have about it is minimal. Furthermore, Japanese themselves were training civilians to fight against American invaders anyway as

      In the words of Mitsuo Fuchida, an IJN captain who participated in the attack on Pearl Harbor and after the war became a Christian missionary:
      You did the right thing. You know the Japanese attitude at that time, how fanatic they were, they'd die for the Emperor [...] Every man, woman, and child would have resisted that invasion with sticks and stones if necessary [...] Can you imagine what a slaughter it would be to invade Japan? It would have been terrible. The Japanese people know more about that than the American public will ever know.

      noted. If anything it's fair to treat anyone who isn't bedridden a combatant at that time.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Not nukes, but Okinawans were oppressed by the mainland Japanese, yet suffered due to the heavy combat in Okinawa.

  5. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    We should have kept blockading and mining around japan to starve 10 million japs instead. The only reason this didn’t happen in our timeline was because of massive amounts of American food aid that I’m sure the hundreds of millions of ragged starving peasants of Asian countries under Japanese occupation would have also appreciated having.

  6. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Yes. Their arrogance and violence against the great USA was the end of ever seeing a Japanese Empire.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Let me guess, you’re American?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        How'd you know?

  7. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    No.

    They deserved to be invaded and get the same treatment as Germany did but X10 due to their suicide autism.

  8. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >do you think Japan deserved to get nuked in ww2?
    Absolutely, this isn't even a question

  9. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Strategically, yes. Morally, the intentions were to save american lives, not japanese ones, and to send a message to the soviets and the world as a whole. If you're the first nation to unlock the nuclear weapon, at some point or another it seems inevitable that it's effects need to be demonstrated on live targets, or there's no true respect for it. The proceeding arms race gripped the entire world with fear for the rest of the 20th century. To be fair had the japanese or germans been in the same position they probably would have been willing to go further, all the same the US wanted to say they have doomsday in their hands and a running head start
    in stockpiling it.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >Morally, the intentions were to save american lives, not japanese ones.
      That is fully justified in a war. The Japanese did not care about american lives.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Japanese military also didn't care for Japanese lives

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >fully justified in a war
        In an even matchup between two nations I guess I can see your point, but in 1945 it was just a matter of how the US would grind Japan into paste. While it's true the japanese would have done worse in the US' position, they weren't and had no chance of being so, so it's not fair to call it reciprocal. The point felt worth clarifying since Truman was ready to let a famine happen during occupation which could have killed many more japanese, which as far as I know we were never that cavalier with Germany's occupation.

  10. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Yes.
    Beyond the Bastards: Nobusuke Kishi
    https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/part-one-the-slavery-loving-fascist-who-built-modern-japan/id1373812661?i=1000536129306

  11. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I don't think they *deserved it* but it was probably necessary to end WW2.

  12. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Deserved? No. Necessary? Probably.

  13. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    the two cities bombs were the highest density locations of Christians in Japan
    another tick for "the good guys lost WWII"

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Wow instead of being 0.001% Christian they were 0.005% Christian

  14. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    There's a whole long ass 2 hour video on the subject by this video essayist name Shawn.
    Long story short his answer is no.
    But, if you're interested in listening to him come to his conclusion here's his video.

  15. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    had they not been nuked, we wouldn't have berserk

  16. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    They should have nuked Tokyo

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      the good guys already burned 200k+ civilians alive earlier there
      you need to nuke relatively intact cities if you want to maximise human suffering

  17. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    NO. It was unnecessary by all accounts. The only reason it's debated is American revisionism to rehabilitate America's image of itself. If you think about it, every country does this (except perhaps modern Germany), where they tell a story about themselves that finesses their crimes/wrong turns. US continues to do this to this day despite having lost its way as a benevolent power long, long ago.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *