Russia an Axis power? Did you sleep through your history classes or what lol
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Tokyo Keeps Defending World War II Atrocities (Foreign Policy)
- Thread starter Piecake
- Start date
Russia an Axis power? Did you sleep through your history classes or what lol
True. It only involved dividing the country and Berlin into four military occupation zones, the annexation of parts of East Germany, adminstrative decentralization and forced labour of German civilians to repay the damages caused to countries by the Nazi regime during the war.
Better than the Morgenthau Plan which was to level all industrial capacity in the country and forcibly return Germany to an agrarian state (which would have been a genocide its own ultimately because an agrarian state couldn't have supported that population, even as depleted as it was by the war).
Leaving the country as is like what happened after ww1 would not have been a good idea either and given that the soviet union did control half the country.
The options was tell the Soviets to get out and risk more war or compromise which is what happened and West Germany became a post war miracle and that was not just forced labor but millions of dollars being invested by other countries trying to get Germany back on their feet again.
East Germany and other eastern European countries who were democracies before the war became the sacrificial lamb and was handed over to Stalin but it was either that or risk continued fighting with the Soviet Union.
In 1945 nobody wanted more war and wanted to move on and at the time it seemed like the right thing to do.
The Supreme Court of SK said their citizen could go after private Japanese companies for restitution. Why Japan is upset is that Japan paid SK restitution under a (1965) treaty where SK said it would use said restitution as compensation for its citizens. SK apparently did not use this money on its citizens and now the government of SK is saying 'Japan gave us money to give to you, we didn't give it to you, go get it from their private companies'. Note that the SK government has already tried to 'collect' another payment for its citizens before (1996).
Japan is saying that SK is shifting responsibility because they feel they paid the restitution that was agreed upon. They feel that SK is not taking responsibility for their misappropriation and directly attacking their private businesses due to their own mismanagement. That's a rough legal precedent and it makes sense that Japan, given their belief they have paid their debt, is fighting it the way they are.
The problem is you change small parts of places to be an attack on nations, a judicial branch sides issues on legality, legally a private citizen has the right to sue a company if the company does not follow worker laws, nothing in either SK law or Japan's laws exonerates a company doing this if the foreign government happens to pay a payment. You take this decision on a court case that makes sense within both countries laws and extrapolate that to be the SK government shifting blame and one Japanese company to be all of Japan.
Good point. Maybe if the treaty had specifically idemnified Japanese companies from wrongdoing, that would be one thing. But it didn't (as it shouldn't have. The criminal actions of the Empire of Japan should not compensate for the criminal actions of specific Japanese entities), or at least not according to the South Korean supreme court.
It's not an attack. SK said they would use restitution to pay civilians. They did not. That is as clear as Japan being responsible for the restitution of their awful crimes. Japan is saying that their businesses should not be further responsible for SK's inability to carry out the terms of the treaty. A treaty based on restitution for forced labor of said company (and many others). Like many war crimes, the lines blur to a much greater degree.
Anyway, I'm not arguing the right of this person to sue, I'm arguing the ethical ground surrounding it and the notion that Japan is 'defending WW2 atrocities' is a gross misrepresentation.
Once again you say SK, but SK's involvement was judicial, they looked at the laws and based their outcome off that. You keep saying SK is shifting blame and that they didn't pay their civilians without actually tying it to the court case itself, even if SK did pay the man it wouldn't change anything within the court case itself, and legally the company would still have to pay since once again nothing exonerates the company from what it did.
Japan's government trying to turn this into a national conflict is unnecessary and reeks of viewing a private matter as an attack on them, which is why they are threatening them with punishments and why people are finding Japan's response questionable. They are escalating it.
OP
OP
Its not from the Korean side. It is from a legal perspective.
And that legal expert says that the 1965 agreement violates international law and the case where Japan flipped its shit was perfectly in accordance with international law.
Moreover, the 1965 treaty was negotiated by a dude who just overthrew the democratically elected government of Korea, negotiated this agreement behind closed doors, and then declared martial law when the korean people protested because they were pissed. Oh, he also served as a soldier in the Japanese army.
I don't really understand how anyone can think that 1965 treaty holds any water based on that
Well done, you know a lot about Japanese history, as do I. The point I was trying to make was that the poster glibly called it a "slap on the wrist" - as a nation, they suffered although as you correctly said, the ruling classes were allowed to continue as long as they submitted to MacArthur's plan.
I just don't like people casually calling one of the shocking events in mankind's history a "slap on the wrist", regardless of what the intentions were when writing.
User Banned (Permanent): Advocating for War Atrocities Against Civilians
Well funny that nobody mentions that their experimental unit with their bioweapons killed over 400 000 people in China.
Here is a few examples of what the Japanese did to Chinese civillians
Plague fleas, infected clothing and infected supplies encased in bombs were dropped on various targets. The resulting cholera, anthrax, and plague were estimated to have killed at least 400,000 Chinese civilians
Army Engineer Yoshimura Hisato conducted experiments by taking captives outside, dipping various appendages into water, and allowing the limb to freeze. Once frozen, which testimony from a Japanese officer said "was determined after the 'frozen arms, when struck with a short stick, emitted a sound resembling that which a board gives when it is struck'" ice was chipped away and the area doused in water. The effects of different water temperatures were tested by bludgeoning the victim to determine if any areas were still frozen.
Syphilis
Unit members orchestrated forced sex acts between infected and non-infected prisoners to transmit the disease, as the testimony of a prison guard on the subject of devising a method for transmission of syphilis between patients shows:
After victims were infected, they were vivisected at different stages of infection, so that internal and external organs could be observed as the disease progressed. Testimony from multiple guards blames the female victims as being hosts of the diseases, even as they were forcibly infected. Genitals of female prisoners that were infected with syphilis were called "jam filled buns" by guards.
Some children grew up inside the walls of Unit 731, infected with syphilis. A Youth Corps member deployed to train at Unit 731 recalled viewing a batch of subjects that would undergo syphilis testing: "one was a Chinese woman holding an infant, one was a White Russian woman with a daughter of four or five years of age, and the last was a White Russian woman with a boy of about six or seven." The children of these women were tested in ways similar to their parents, with specific emphasis on determining how longer infection periods affected the effectiveness of treatments.
Rape and forced pregnancy
Female prisoners were forced to become pregnant for use in experiments. The hypothetical possibility of vertical transmission (from mother to child) of diseases, particularly syphilis, was the stated reason for the torture. Fetal survival and damage to mother's reproductive organs were objects of interest. Though "a large number of babies were born in captivity", there have been no accounts of any survivors of Unit 731, children included. It is suspected that the children of female prisoners were killed after birth or aborted.
While male prisoners were often used in single studies, so that the results of the experimentation on them would not be clouded by other variables, women were sometimes used in bacteriological or physiological experiments, sex experiments, and as the victims of sex crimes. The testimony of a unit member that served as guard graphically demonstrated this reality:
Fuck any Japanese who dares to call the US cruel and defend this shit they can take their moralizing and fuck right off Abe is a scumbag for denying it.
None of them were prosecuted for these crimes so compare these horror with what the "poor" Japanese went through in my opinion they deserved worse.
Compared to what these chinese civillians went through the two nukes were a slap on the wrist, and don't get me started on the Korean comfort women issue.
Last edited:
Yes, everyone is terrible during war. There are no real winners. Humanity is capable of horrible things.
Your own link says they were not an axis power. They signed some treaties for a period of time but the Soviet Union was not part of the Axis.
You should look up the horrific casualties from the fire bombing that the US was already doing. It was all logical insanity.
Sorry, this has bothered me for days. Can you please clarify what you mean by this?
A thing I only recently learned is that Japan joined the allied forces in WW1, after they annexed Korea apparently.
"In October and November 1940, German-Soviet talks about the potential of joining the Axis took place in Berlin....... Joseph Stalin later personally countered with a separate proposal in a letter on 25 November..... Hitler never responded to Stalin's letter. Shortly thereafter, Hitler issued a secret directive on the invasion of the Soviet Union."
I think most people know the Molotov Pact linked the two countries together tightly, but they were never pure allies in the classical sense.
Very few countries have ever paid reparations for their past atrocities. All of the major world powers have been responsible for crimes against humanity, including the USA, Russia, China, Japan, Britain, France, Germany, etc.
However, that does not excuse Japan in any way. It was one of the worst violators of human rights in World War II. They should be responsible and acknowledge their past atrocities, and apologise to the nations the Japanese Empire invaded in the past. In this case, all that South Korea is asking for is compensation to a few people still alive that they abused in the past. And it's not a whole lot of money either, since most of the people they abused are dead by now. Japan is making a big issue out of it for no good reason.
Last edited:
What the Japanese Empire did was absolutely atrocious, but how on Earth can you justify nuking and mass-murdering hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children? If you truly believe they deserved it, then that just makes you a xenophobic mass-murder apologist, no better than Japanese right-wingers who try to justify past atrocities (or the Western far-right, for that matter).
Last edited:
The use of the bombs is easily justifiable given the alternatives. The goal was to end a brutal war which Japan initiated and it worked. Comparing that decision to things like the Rape of Nanking or the atrocities of Unit 731 is laughable.
Tbh, the firebombings of Japanese cities easily killed more people than the two nukes dropped on Japan (and were sadly justifiable in that they ruined a good portion of Japanese war production). I actually don't find arguments stating Japan's surrender was due to the Russian invasion of Manchuria rather than the nukes to be credible as I find it strange to think Japan would surrender with the loss of Manchuria despite still holding the Home Islands and relying on a fight so bloody the Allies negotiate a peace rather than invade. If you read about the Japanese defense plans for the Home Islands, they are utterly horrifying (for both sides, Japan was arming the civilian population for combat) and Allied estimates for the casualties that would occur in the event of Operation Downfall, the invasion of the islands would basically be at least double the deaths from the nuclear bombings, with ranges all the way into a million death from both sides combined.
If you consider that the nuclear bombs helped persuade Japan to surrender, and that if they had not occurred, Japan would have fought on into Operation Downfall, than undoubtedly more people would die as a result than the nuclear bombings.
Ah, the usual laughable excuses from neo-con mass-murder apologists...
But no, there were less-destructive alternatives. Japan was already defeated, sanctioned, and blockaded, so it was only a matter of when, not if, they would surrender. There is plenty of historical evidence showing that negotiations for Japan's surrender were already under way well before the nukes, with Japan trying to negotiate more favourable surrender terms (like its military leaders trying to avoid war-crime trials).
The real reason why the US dropped the nukes has nothing to do with forcing Japan to surrender. The real reason is because it coincided with the beginning of the Cold War between the USA and USSR. The USA and USSR were both interested in taking Japan. The US feared a potential Soviet invasion of Japan, so the US used nukes to take Japan before the Soviets could take it.
Either way, the poster I was responding to was trying to argue that hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese civilian men, women and children "deserved" to be mass-murdered, in retribution for what their government and army did in China and Korea. That's the part which is downright racist and xenophobic. That's the same kind of attitude that has led to millions of people being killed in wars across the world. No civilians "deserve" to be killed in retribution for something their government or army did.
Last edited:
Yeah. Also there was even an attempted coup to continue the war on even after both nukes and the soviet invasion. The Soviet wouldn't have been able to conduct an invasion of the homeland after their poor amphibious invasion of a northern island as well.
Looks like this was posted the same time as my post. I responded to part of this argument above:
In the months leading up to the Atomic bombings, there were communications between Japan and the US which show that they were already negotiating Japan's surrender. With a potential Soviet invasion on the way, Japan preferred surrendering to the US rather than be invaded by the Soviets. So Japan was trying to secure a conditional surrender with the US. One of those conditions was that Japan's military leaders would avoid war-crime trials, which the US rejected.
In other words, the evidence above goes against the narrative peddled by US propaganda to justify the Atomic bombings, e.g. that it would've prevented more deaths, and dehumanising racist propaganda about the the Japanese people being sub-human suicidal fanatics who can't be reasoned with and will fight to the death. That's just false propaganda, something the US has been effective at for decades, e.g. the Vietnam War and Iraq War propaganda machines, to justify the deaths of millions of Vietnamese and Iraqis.
Last edited:
This is a myth. German reckoning with their Nazi past did not reach the levels we associate with Germany until the 1960s-2000s. In 1985, Reagan and Kohl had the Bitburg Controversy, where Reagan and Kohl honored German military dead, including members of the SS.
Despite the nuclear bombings, the Japanese military attempted a coup to prevent the peace talks from concluding, and individual Japanese soldiers held out on their own for years until they were personally ordered to stand down. The Soviet Union had no capability to lift the needed troops to invade Japan, and even received U.S naval capability in the form of Project Hula. There was no way in hell they could invade Hokkaido.
......sub-human suicidal fanatics? Really? No Hyper, the Japanese were dedicated soldiers, who were ready to defend their homeland from the American invaders, whom they characterized as rapists and beasts that would rape and destroy Japan in the event of the invasion, and therefore every Japanese citizen should fight them. The island battles of the Pacific campaign, and the Battle of Okinawa attest to Japanese resistance, and the cruelty of Japanese propaganda that led to thousands of Okinawans killing themselves rather than surrender to American soldiers.
But they hadn't surrendered yet, had they? It is a huge leap to make to say that being in talks about a surrender meant that one was imminent.
........Would you argue that allowing Germany to come to a negotiated peace where Hitler, Goebbels, and the rest of the Nazi leadership gets to escape war crime trials is a "justified" solution?
Or maybe murdering millions of Europeans is much more a heinous crime than murdering millions of Chinese, Filipinos, Vietnamese, Indonesians, etc, etc.
Last edited:
ChippyTurtle:
The coup was a failed attempt, so it wouldn't have prevented the negotiations either way.
Considering how the USSR had a powerful military that was largely responsible for the defeat of the Nazis, I highly doubt the USSR wouldn't have been able to invade Japan.
If the nukes really were responsible for Japan surrendering, then why didn't Japan surrender after the first nuke? It was only after the Soviets declared they would invade Japan that the Japanese surrendered soon after. It's also no coincidence that the second nuke was dropped shortly after the USSR's declaration.
And no, it's not a "justified" solution for Japan's war leaders to get away with crimes against humanity (those scumbags deserved to be executed). But actually, IIRC, they later dropped that condition and Japan instead demanded that only Emperor Hirohito not be charged. Which the US decided not to do anyway after Japan surrendered. So it wouldn't have made a difference either way.
The coup was a failed attempt, so it wouldn't have prevented the negotiations either way.
Considering how the USSR had a powerful military that was largely responsible for the defeat of the Nazis, I highly doubt the USSR wouldn't have been able to invade Japan.
If the nukes really were responsible for Japan surrendering, then why didn't Japan surrender after the first nuke? It was only after the Soviets declared they would invade Japan that the Japanese surrendered soon after. It's also no coincidence that the second nuke was dropped shortly after the USSR's declaration.
And no, it's not a "justified" solution for Japan's war leaders to get away with crimes against humanity (those scumbags deserved to be executed). But actually, IIRC, they later dropped that condition and Japan instead demanded that only Emperor Hirohito not be charged. Which the US decided not to do anyway after Japan surrendered. So it wouldn't have made a difference either way.
Last edited:
Suggest Hitler gets to not face justice for instigating the European War, unthinkable.
Suggest Hirohito gets to not face justice for instigating the Pacific War, "OMG America is evil for not negotiating peace, those racists!"
A lot of is simple ignorance and a focus on the Holocaust, and Hitler, and Nazis, which is fine.....except it should be clear by now the Japanese leadership is no better than those Nazis.
Hyper, a powerful military does not equal "Naval power needed to conduct a invasion", nor "The tactics, strategy, and manufacturing capability needed to make a seaborne invasion possible"
Where is the Soviet Union supposed to have gained the experience to conduct a invasion of Japan? Where is the Soviet Union supposed to build the ships needed to carry the invasion force to invade Japan? Where is the Soviet Union supposed to base the aircraft needed to provide the air power needed to cover the invasion forces as they land? Where is the staging area in the Far East thats supposed to hold the troops and materials for the invasion? Where is the needed sealift capability for the continued supply of Soviet troops in Japan?
For crying out loud Hyper, the U.S gave the Soviet Union some of the ships used in the invasion of the Kuril islands.
Anyhow, the coup occurred after the nuclear bombings! Japan did not surrender after the 1st bombing cause they were still figuring out what the hell happened to Hiroshima.
Does Hitler get to escape war crimes trials too then? Since he was the leader of Nazi Germany, just as Hirohito was leader of Imperial Japan......
Suggest Hirohito gets to not face justice for instigating the Pacific War, "OMG America is evil for not negotiating peace, those racists!"
A lot of is simple ignorance and a focus on the Holocaust, and Hitler, and Nazis, which is fine.....except it should be clear by now the Japanese leadership is no better than those Nazis.
Hyper, a powerful military does not equal "Naval power needed to conduct a invasion", nor "The tactics, strategy, and manufacturing capability needed to make a seaborne invasion possible"
Where is the Soviet Union supposed to have gained the experience to conduct a invasion of Japan? Where is the Soviet Union supposed to build the ships needed to carry the invasion force to invade Japan? Where is the Soviet Union supposed to base the aircraft needed to provide the air power needed to cover the invasion forces as they land? Where is the staging area in the Far East thats supposed to hold the troops and materials for the invasion? Where is the needed sealift capability for the continued supply of Soviet troops in Japan?
For crying out loud Hyper, the U.S gave the Soviet Union some of the ships used in the invasion of the Kuril islands.
Anyhow, the coup occurred after the nuclear bombings! Japan did not surrender after the 1st bombing cause they were still figuring out what the hell happened to Hiroshima.
Does Hitler get to escape war crimes trials too then? Since he was the leader of Nazi Germany, just as Hirohito was leader of Imperial Japan......
No, this is unsupported by the historical record. A Soviet entry into the war against Japan was specifically requested and negotiated by President Roosevelt at the Yalta conference in February 1945. Shortly after securing Soviet entry ("3 months after the conclusion of the European War" was the timeline agreed upon), Roosevelt had agreed to attend planning meetings for their use against Japan in some capacity (although frustratingly we don't know too many detailed thoughts about this as he died before these meetings took place).
After Truman took power, he never made any effort to tell the Soviets that actually they didn't want their help taking out Japan anymore. While it is the case that he was more concerned by the USSR than Roosevelt had been, we have absolutely no reason to believe that things would have been much different under Roosevelt versus Truman when it comes to whether or not the weapons would have been deployed. Perhaps Roosevelt would have insisted on different target lists, but that's just speculation.
As to whether or not the intention was inducing Japanese surrender, we do have strong evidence that that was, in fact, the primary motivation. Not that nobody had ever thought about anything else, or that people were blind to the significance of having a nuclear arsenal in the postwar period, or that nobody was ever concerned about Soviet influence in Europe or Asia. Nor was it the case that this was a calculated ethical decision to save Japanese lives or any such things. Nor was it the case that anybody thought Japan could never surrender if not for their use. Nor was it the case that people believed it would definitely be as simple as "drop bomb -> instant surrender", least of all the war planners, who wasted no time in thoroughly preparing for the ground invasion.
Being aware that the Japanese were attempting to negotiate peace is also not the same as accepting the unconditional surrender demanded by the Potsdam declaration. We don't need to worry about whether or not the United States were aware that the Japanese had been trying to use the Soviets as a neutral third party to broker a peace deal, because a) the Soviets had no intention of acting in this capacity because they wanted a slice of Japanese territory and b) there were direct communications between Japan and the United States where Japan rejected the terms that the United States wanted. The idea that they wanted some kind of peace is extremely obvious, it's the details of that peace that are significant.
By the way, you are 100% correct, a big reason why the Japanese refused to surrender is wanting to keep the Emperor safe and remain as ruler of Japan, so again, I ask you, is Hirohito escaping war crimes trials a justified reason for ending the war, and would you say the same for Adolf Hitler? Would you argue the U.S is the aggressor (which you are here in relation to not accepting Japanese offers of negotiated peace) in relation to letting Hitler go? What about allowing Nazi Germany to remain in power? Japanese proposals on peace included simply conceding her colonies, disarming, yet still retaining the government that led the country into war in the first place, does that apply to Nazi Germany too?
I'll skip the run-around and say a big fat NO. The Japanese, like the Germans, heard the talk of unconditional surrender, and doubled down, yet I feel like no one ever says the U.S is in the wrong for not dropping unconditional surrender for Nazis, but hey, for the Japanese? Plenty and I have no doubt its cause all the atrocities the Japanese did just don't hit home for most people......
Honestly, the reason why im so on you Hyper...is cause for some reason you seem so intent on defending the Japanese leadership, despite being fucking Nazis, but guess what, they are fucking yellow so let me get in a dig against the U.S.A cause I only hate white Nazis. Its bullshit, it reeks one, of getting a punch in against the U.S (when its absolutely unjustified), and two, is basically just saying, I don't give a fuck about anything they did, cause it means absolutely nothing to me. You wouldn't defend Hitler would you? So why call out the U.S for doing the same thing it did to Nazi Germany?
(oh im chinese, so buzz off about me calling Japanese people yellow)
(oh im chinese, so buzz off about me calling Japanese people yellow)
ChippyTurtle:
You missed my point, and are misinterpreting what I said. My point is that Hirohito was never brought to justice for the savage crimes perpetrated by his military. Even after dropping the nukes, the US decided to accept Japan's demands of keeping Hirohito as their Emperor...
So what was the bloody point of the nukes? If the US was already going to accept Japan's condition anyway, then why did the US decide to mass-murder hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians before doing so? If America's goal was to bring Hirohito to justice as you claim, then they outright lied. The US never had any real intention of bringing Hirohito to justice.
And do the lives of Japanese civilians somehow matter less than other Asian people, or European people? My point is that all civilian lives matter, not just European or Asian or Japanese lives. It's not a competition.
You missed my point, and are misinterpreting what I said. My point is that Hirohito was never brought to justice for the savage crimes perpetrated by his military. Even after dropping the nukes, the US decided to accept Japan's demands of keeping Hirohito as their Emperor...
So what was the bloody point of the nukes? If the US was already going to accept Japan's condition anyway, then why did the US decide to mass-murder hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians before doing so? If America's goal was to bring Hirohito to justice as you claim, then they outright lied. The US never had any real intention of bringing Hirohito to justice.
And do the lives of Japanese civilians somehow matter less than other Asian people, or European people? My point is that all civilian lives matter, not just European or Asian or Japanese lives. It's not a competition.
The U.S only decided to allow Hirohito to stay after the Japanese surrendered, and mostly based on MacArthur's recommendation. The point of the nukes, like I argued before, was to end the war, make it unthinkable for the Japanese to believe they had a fighting chance. Its already been said that the invasion by Russia of the Home Islands was impossible, that Japan was prepping to bleed out both itself and the Allies out in any invasion of the Home Islands in the hopes of concluding a negotiated peace, and that in the event of the invasion, more people were going to die than in the two nuclear bombings by a range of at least double the dead of the nuclear bombings, and was totally possible for the death count to reach 1 million+.
I have never downplayed Japan's atrocities in any way whatsoever, and I apologize if you felt that way. I mentioned in my opening post in this very thread that Japan should absolutely apologize to every single nation it has ever invaded, and pay compensation to all the people who are alive today that suffered from Japanese atrocities. And yes, it's unfortunate that the Western world is ignorant about Japanese atrocities like the Rape of Nanjing and comfort women, and I wish more people in the West knew about it. The Rape of Nanjing should be remembered the same way we remember the Holocaust.
But the issue I have is the "eye for an eye" mentality that many people seem to have. Just because hundreds of thousands of innocent Chinese men, women and children were killed in the Rape of Nanjing, does that mean hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese men, women and children deserved to be killed in retribution? It's not a competition. As Gandhi once said, an "eye for an eye will make the world go blind."
Last edited:
My point is that the "negotiated peace" that Japan was aiming for was to prevent Hirohito from facing a war crime trial. Which would mean the nukes were pointless, because Hirohito ended up never facing a war crime trial anyway and getting away with it.
The reason why many Japanese were willing to fight and die was to protect Hirohito, who they viewed as a "god". And even after the nukes dropped, many Japanese would've still been willing to fight and die if they're so-called "god" was under threat. So again, I don't see what purpose the nukes served in this regard.
By the way, do you have a reliable source to back up your claim that a Soviet invasion of Japan would've been unfeasible?
Last edited:
Is there an academic explanation why two bombs were deployed?
They prepped sharpened bamboo sticks for women and kids to use by charging into American soldiers. I 100% believe that had the Japanese not surrendered, it would have been a complete bloodbath for everyone.
A negotiated peace differs from unconditional surrender in that General MacArthur, as the head of the U.S Occupation in Japan, was allowed to craft whatever changes he wanted to Japanese society and life, vs the possibility of the Japanese government remaining in power and able to operate with sovereignty.
I've read quotes that both the U.S and Japan thought that if only one bomb were used, than the Japanese would simply think they did not have anymore. With two dropped, it becomes impossible to think there couldn't be more.
What are you basing this on anyway? Afaik there is no actual solid evidence that the US used the nukes knowing it would end the war. In fact, there were mass invasions of the Soviet army soon after the bombings and bigger than anything the US had done before, yes, even D-Day. For all we know the war would have ended soon without the nukes.
Do you mean why they stopped at two, or why they dropped a second in general?
Here is the official order:
There was an explicit order for the first bomb that was signed, but included in part of this order is a sort of almost casual "yeah, and just keep dropping them as they arrive". This is not very surprising, because these bombs were ultimately an extention of the mass air raids that had been conducted for 6+ months by the time the first nuclear weapon was delivered into the theatre of operations for use. President Truman, Stimson and Groves did not give specific go/no-go orders for each nuclear bombing, they simply drafted this policy and left the specifics to the commanders on the ground as to what pace they were delivered at and which specific targets would be struck from the broader list given, based on prevailing weather conditions and the like. From the perspective of Truman et al, it wasn't obvious that 2 bombs would be "enough", and they were fully prepared for a worst case scenario in which they drop 5+ atomic bombs and also invade after that has happened.
If weather had been different, there might have been a delay of up to 4 additional days between the two bombings that could potentially have resulted in a surrender prior to the 2nd. But we don't really know, it's really really hard to give good answers that don't oversimplify things and fundamentally, we don't know fully what was going on in everyone's heads even when we have meeting minutes and such.
Mass invasions where? If you mean the invasion of Manchuria, it is absolutely a different beast invading from a land border vs a weakened and stripped bare of supplies, and their best men in the Kwantung Army than a invasion by sea.
I see this thread is going in the usual directions these threads always goes.
If Japan doesn't want to be held accountable for their war crimes, then as a Korean, they can't be mad at me for thinking The Day The Light Returned was named because my people saw the atomic flash and knew they were liberated.
I don't like the idea that a bunch of people had to be nuked to free my homeland, I'm not going to argue against Koreans being out from under the yoke of Japanese oppression.
I don't think people understand how hard Japan tried to erase our history and culture. They razed our palaces for their administrative buildings, they defaced our temples to make them Shinto, they terraformed the land and replaced native flora with Japanese flora. We had to cultivate our national flower in secret, because those plants were gathered and destroyed.
If Japan doesn't want to be held accountable for their war crimes, then as a Korean, they can't be mad at me for thinking The Day The Light Returned was named because my people saw the atomic flash and knew they were liberated.
I don't like the idea that a bunch of people had to be nuked to free my homeland, I'm not going to argue against Koreans being out from under the yoke of Japanese oppression.
I don't think people understand how hard Japan tried to erase our history and culture. They razed our palaces for their administrative buildings, they defaced our temples to make them Shinto, they terraformed the land and replaced native flora with Japanese flora. We had to cultivate our national flower in secret, because those plants were gathered and destroyed.
Last edited:
Having met and talked to actual British soldiers taken prisoner by the Japanese during WW2, I wholeheartedly agree.
Also, I thought talking openly about the other place here was a bannable offence?