Why do the Japanese act like huge victims when it comes to the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? I mean...

Sorry to break it to you but nukes are a hoax... youtu.be/sULjMjK5lCI

On the other hand, in this context the nuclear bombs didn't even mean much.

It's like if you got super pissed that a guy poisoned someone, while not giving much attention to the fact that the same guy already beat 20 other people to death.

>and I'm glad we lost
>implying

But then we might live in a timeline without anime

Glad they lost in a way they could recover one
It's like losing a fight and going home with either a broken nose or a broken spine

>take german scientist for best bombs
>take japs for best anime

>you probably already won, you didn't have to make sure, that really hurt!

>what is the difference between implying and stating

It was unnecessary to use nuclear force, but we did, for the first time on the planet, to show Russia and everyone else we had it and we'd use it.

>unnecessary
is it a thing in warfare to calculate the minimum amount of damage you can deal to your enemy and still win instead of eliminating as much risk as possible of losing a war or suffering more losses?

Actually they tried that.
This. It's the blatantly calculating nature of it all that gets people. Well, that and the giant fiery ball of doom.

Why can you trust chink propaganda?

Frankly if I were in the shoes of the Americans I would've have dropped them as well. You've been firebombing the shit out of them for a while now, and your first truly "Home Island" invasion of Okinawa was a hellfire tier shitshow. And they still haven't given up. Now you're looking at an invasion that's estimated to result in millions of extra casualties for your side and theirs. Also odds are Japan would've been partitioned just like Korea with the Soviets

In most cases, people who criticize America for nukes are not Japanese. Japanese Americans are not actual Japanese as well.

For justification, people forget easily about a war crimes tribunal, apologies, and compensations. And say “they think they dindu nuffin” periodically.

Two firebombing missions on Nagasaki and Hiroshima would not have convinced Japanese leadership to surrender.

It had to be nuclear, to show Japan America's capability to wipe the Japanese out with no losses to themselves.

(Yes, yes, there were no more ready nukes at after the first two for months, but the Japs did not know that)

This is literally the only justification, some of it, not the land invasion part or the partioning part. Yes I am the dude who posted the image.

They took the easy way out, they had just spent a shit ton of money on this new weapon which had to be effectively demonstrated. If you think an attack such as this is justifiable as 'good' because it forced the surrender (ends justifying the means) then you're an ignorant fool.

>"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.

>"The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."

> William Leahy, I Was There, pg. 441.

They really don't. The bombing was justified but it just creates a really large existential crisis within their cultures psyche. They had an entire cultural belief system shatter with those bombings. They are just working out their final beliefs on the event through cinema and trying to make the suffering meaningful. Raising awareness about the consequences of those bombings will help keep people from going that far in the future.

The Japanese had done a great number of atrocities that were based in the belief of a greater good for a god emperor. Many civilizations have done so. People set cultural archetypes and act them out until they decay, change, or shatter. The whole past century was a big thought experiment filled with clashing and erupting ideologies. The aftermath of that is just us trying to create better underlying metaphysics for our societies to operate under.

>Also odds are Japan would've been partitioned just like Korea with the Soviets

Why the hell do people keep saying this? It isn't fucking true. The only landing craft the Soviets had in the pacific are the ones the Americans gave to them in project Hula. They are in no way near enough to transport an invasion force to Hokkaido; hell, they only took the Kurils because of the overall surrender; there were still active Japanese forces fighting by the end of August.

The only way the Japanese islands are being partitioned is if the Americans lend the Soviets landing craft to mount an invasion instead of using those same landing craft to support their own invasion. Why the fuck would they have done that?

>The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.

There are no primary sources from the Imperial government that support the idea that there was any realistic attempt to sue for peace before the nuclear attacks.

The overwhelmingly vast majority of Japanese military forces were stationed on the southern two islands, and even those stationed "north" were on Honshu, not Hokkaido.

Yes, there were token troops in the untamed northern island, but not enough that you couldn't just land troops normally without needing a extensive small-boat network.

Except for those quotes and many others which are literally primary sources.

You understand this quote in of itself is more reliable than any Japanese sources which would mot likely be extreme propaganda, do you know anything about this war? Where the numbers vary from 10 thousand to 10 million depending on who you ask?

Do they? It was the only time when the most powerful weapon humanity ever invented was used against civilian population in my opinion it does not get more attention than it deserves and Japanese people don't put the focus on blaming Americans for it , they focus on the dead and the tragedy itself.

Isn't blaming Americans for the use of nuclear bomb more of a western thing?

Are you telling me a secondary source is more primary than primary sources?

You're telling me that when Japan's Big Six told their people they would fight the Americans if they invaded that I should believe they were lying and believe some non-Japanese man who was not there in the Imperial conferences?

>The overwhelmingly vast majority of Japanese military forces were stationed on the southern two islands, and even those stationed "north" were on Honshu, not Hokkaido.

They still had 4 divisions, which is easily enough to stop the paltry landing ability of about a dozen Higgins boats.

history.army.mil/books/wwii/MacArthur Reports/MacArthur V2 P2/ch19.htm

>Yes, there were token troops in the untamed northern island, but not enough that you couldn't just land troops normally without needing a extensive small-boat network.

It is plenty enough to require dedicated landing craft. Again, that's what the Soviets used (and don't forget, lost almost a third of those committed) to hit the much more lightly defended Kurils. Don't forget, you're launching this invasion out of either Vladivostok, Salkhalin, or a port you've secured in Korea. No matter which way you're looking at it, you're talking about 100km covered at sea. Good luck doing that in a commandeered fishing boats.

>Are you telling me a secondary source is more primary than primary sources?

Kek, do you know what a primary source is? The quote I post is a primary source, I suggest you go back to school, if you cannot identify primary, secondary and tertiary sources.

>You're telling me that when Japan's Big Six told their people they would fight the Americans if they invaded that I should believe they were lying and believe some non-Japanese man who was not there in the Imperial conferences?

Kek, so you actually believe that if Japan was invaded they would be met with children and women armed with bamboo spears dying for the empowered shouting BANSAI. You do not understand propaganda and it's uses, you are actually proving me correct.

That is literal, American propaganda, senpai. Like, not even joking, your idea of the Japanese are still being formed by a 1945 American propaganda film.

I am done with you.

>Everything that disagrees with my view of History is propaganda

Holy shit

youtube.com/watch?v=I-lQ3BrzQO4

There you go senpai.

>so you actually believe that if Japan was invaded they would be met with children and women armed with bamboo spears dying for the empowered shouting BANSAI

Have you ever read Hasting's "Retribution"?

It has a very good section of interviews with people who were school children during the war and they make no attempt to hide that they would have fought if they thought it was the Emperor's will.

Not him, but

>Kek, do you know what a primary source is? The quote I post is a primary source,

It actually isn't for what you're using it for. Leahy's assertion that

> The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender

Is an opinion based on his own sources of knowledge, not a primary source from the Japanese government, such as it was.

It can be a primary source for issues of American strategic thought about what the Japanese were thinking, but not Japanese strategic thought

>That is literal, American propaganda, senpai. Like, not even joking, your idea of the Japanese are still being formed by a 1945 American propaganda film.

So, the mass suicides in Okinawa, or the rates of killed and wounded exceeded 97% of the "garrison" on Tarawa, Iwo Jima, Wake, Saipan, and Guam; when said garrisons included not just IJA and IJN personnel, but laborers, and military families, you think that's propaganda? Or a poor indicator of what fighting on Japan proper would be like?

With what though? For every interview and excerpt from a diary I can also provide you with the same.

I can show you interviews of grown men deformed by the nukes saying they literally could not fight when their population was starving and they had no fucking shoes.

But yeah, America said they were gunna keep fighting, Japan said the same thing, so they nuked em.

>For every interview and excerpt from a diary I can also provide you with the same.

I would like a single interview of a Japanese person who lived during the war who asserts that the Japanese people would not have fought if the Imperial government told them that is what the Emperor wished.

>Frankly if I were in the shoes of the Americans I would've have dropped them as well.

The Americans were irrational anyway

>these guys bombed one of our remote military bases once, therefore we have to conquer their entire country and make it our satellite forever

Nowdays it may look normal because of the precedent set by WW2, but requiring unconditional surrender and eternal military occupation of a country for such a minor offense was absolutly irrational back then

Even Germany wasnt treated so harshly by the Allies Post-WW1 despite the fact they hadnt just bombed some remote colonial base but invaded a big chunk of mainland France and turned it into ashes

>Is an opinion based on his own sources of knowledge, not a primary source from the Japanese government, such as it was.
Literally what? It's not a primary source from the Japanese government, no, I didn't say it was. That doesn't mean it's not a primary source, it most certainly is.

>Japanese soldiers fought to the last man
>therefore millions of Japanese civilians who never knew military life would do the same
>because some children said they would

Your logic, senpai. You are actually justifying the nukes with hearsay.

...

They don't.

It's not about weather they would or not, they literally could not.

>how could we fight when our people didn't have food or shoes
That is the point I am making.

I've seen the film and I don't remember any assertions about Japan's willingness to fight, only descriptions of the bombing and aftermath.

Unless you mean that the radiated populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki could not resist an attack on their own, in which case I agree

No, I mean the man who wrote Genji talking about the fact that his population was starving and had no ability to fight and literally, no fucking shoes.

"barefoot Genji".

If you missed it, it's not my fault your a fool, watch it again.

>how could we fight when our people didn't have food or shoes

There's a reason they practiced with bamboo spears.

And it's been shown before that the Imperial government was very willing to sacrifice citizens (to both attack and starvation) so I'm not sure if you're trying to say that the starvation would cause less deaths than the bombings, which is doubtful given the path Japan's leaders had put itself on.

>japan was totally gonna surrender but dem evil gaijins nuked them anyway.

Lets see what the Japanese goverment had to say about the Potsdam declaration and whether Japan should or should not surrender before nukes were used against Japan.

>The government does not regard [the Potsdam Declaration] as a thing of any value; the government will just ignore it. We will press forward resolutely to carry the war to a successful conclusion.
>for the enemy to say something like that means circumstances have arisen that force them also to end the war. That is why they are talking about unconditional surrender. Precisely at a time like this, if we hold firm, they will yield before we do. Just because they have broadcast their Declaration, it is not necessary to stop fighting. You advisers may ask me to reconsider, but I don't think there is any need to stop.

As you can see these totally are words of people that wish to surrender but are denied a chance to do so because Americans want to test their new toys on live targets.

Gen's father was publicly anti-war, which is why his family was denied much of the support and rationing the rest of the population recieved.

Did you watch Barefoot Gen?

People just don't see reason.

Yes, in order for the Americans to avoid fighting peoples armed with bamboo spears, they nuked them into oblivion.

That is great justification you have there.

>terally what? It's not a primary source from the Japanese government, no, I didn't say it was. That doesn't mean it's not a primary source, it most certainly is.

user, the same document can be a primary source for one thing and not a primary source for another. Shakespeare's Macbeth is not a primary source for 11th century Scottish history, but it is a primary source for early 17th century English theater.

Similarly, Leahy's statements, even though they're from the same timeframe and subject as the ultimate issue, are themselves not original sources of information about the topic of Japanese strategic thought. Therefore, they are not a primary source about contemporary Japanese thought, only American understanding of such.

>Japanese soldiers fought to the last man
>therefore millions of Japanese civilians who never knew military life would do the same
>because some children said they would

You don't read too good, do you? Try my post again, and then think of things like the mass suicides on Saipan, or how the Korean labor detachments in the various pacific islands often did fight to the last man.

Yes, don't argue the point, argue barefoot Gen.
>inb4 you are making no points
Just stop posting man.

mmmmm, yes, a nation who barely had 40% of it's city remain had such a huge potential to wage.

Are you implying the Japanese military wouldn't take part in the fighting or are you implying that the Japanese military hadn't been stockpiling weapons, ammunition, tanks, etc for the final fight?

Citizens with spears weren't the entirety of the defense plan.

I literally said I did not claim it was a primary source relating to Japanese strategic thought, what you are doing, senpai?

I am not the one insisting every single Japanese would seppuku at a land invasion because some soldiers did it sometimes.

That's you.

Literally, all i am saying is that with no food or ability to clothe their peoples, what fight could they put up.

>soldiers killed themselves therefore all Japanese would do the same
Can you not see how retarded that justification is?

>because some soldiers did it sometimes.

Just a single example among many, but have you not seen the video of mothers on Okinawa throwing their children and themselves off the cliffs when the Americans try to capture them?

>I literally said I did not claim it was a primary source relating to Japanese strategic thought, what you are doing, senpai?

Then you're contradicting your claims here> That doesn't mean it's not a primary source, it most certainly is.
And here

>Except for those quotes and many others which are literally primary sources.

Since you are, in fact, using them to justify that Japan was "ready to surrender".

>I am not the one insisting every single Japanese would seppuku at a land invasion because some soldiers did it sometimes.

ANd what do you know, I'm not either! All I'm saying is that there is no indication from the Japanese themselves that they were ready to surrender from actual primary sources concerning what the Japanese command were thinking. And that given of past experience with tooth and nail resistance on outlying islands, expecting more of the same is quite reasonable from the American point of view.

>That's my bizarre strawman

FTFY.

>Literally, all i am saying is that with no food or ability to clothe their peoples, what fight could they put up.

A poor, desperate, futile one that would ultimately be very bloody nonetheless, especially to themselves.

Just like say, Germany in the spring of 1945.

Not that user but you're a terrible poster and Veeky Forums would be better if you never made another poster.

sigh.

>Literally, all i am saying is that with no food or ability to clothe their peoples, what fight could they put up.

People were still eating and people still had clothes. Yes, rural farmers had shit bad, but things got progressively less bad as you went up from civilian to military.

I'm still confused where you got this idea that Japanese soldiers were one day from starving before the Americans occupied the country.

They would have EVENTUALLY starved, but given the Imperial governments calloused treatment of its citizens, I'd wager the starvation deaths would have outnumbered the atomic deaths by mid-46

Fake American propaganda, we all know that the Okinawans were trying to surrender peaceful but the American marines gunned them down like animals and proceeded to rape their corpses.

>Literally, all i am saying is that with no food or ability to clothe their peoples, what fight could they put up

Have you ever heard of a little city called Leningrad?

Just curious.

kek, I mean, you've actually replied to one of my posts where I said it's not a Japanese primary source, but still a primary source.

>Yes, rural farmers had shit bad, but things got progressively less bad as you went up from civilian to military.

No fucking shit, literally all that was left was the civilians, are you actually that dense? Their military had been defeated. The land invasion you are talking about is fighting civilians, not the defeated military, the civilians whom you all say would die because the emperor said so.

What is with you people who enjoy using on singular example and upholding it as empirical evidence? Man this board needs some sort of indentiy tag, so we can see the hypocrisy you faggots post.

>Because the Japs are unapologetic cunts.
Actually, the general consensus among the Japanese is they had it coming, and had to be stopped.

Which is more or less also the opinion of the side that dropped the bombs.

But, generally, neither side, discarding the various internet edge lords, considers it anything but a tragedy. Maybe a necessary tragedy, but a tragedy nonetheless.

Even if neither side can put forth an official apology, that's more or less been the dialogue for decades now.

As for how/why it's worse than a firebombing, there's the time frame involved, and that the firebombing involved a lot more military targets. While the two bombs killed ~180,000 civilians, they only killed maybe ~2000 troops, and no significant military installations (meanwhile over 700,000 jap troops died to conventional Russian forces in Manchuria, between the two bombs). It wasn't an act of war, but one of pure terror, designed to put a quick and definitive end to a war that had already been won.

>singular example and upholding it as empirical evidence?

>examples are not evidence

>Leningrad was unique

HOLY SHIT

You are literally saying
>it happened at Leningrad therefore it will happen all over Japan

Is that the crux of your argument?

What you're spouting is the propaganda.

Trying to force an argument as my position is not an arugement in itself.

I do not need to prove every single individual of the Japanese population said they would fight to reach the conclusion that it was very likely the majority of the population would follow the example of citizens in authoritarian societies when forced by their government to stand between invaders and the homeland

>kek, I mean, you've actually replied to one of my posts where I said it's not a Japanese primary source, but still a primary source.

But it isn't in a primary sense in the way you're using it in post

i.e. that the Japanese were ready to surrender. It can be a primary source for American thoughts and intentions, but not Japanese ones. This isn't a hard concept to grasp, I don't know why you're having trouble with it.

>No fucking shit, literally all that was left was the civilians, are you actually that dense? Their military had been defeated. The land invasion you are talking about is fighting civilians, not the defeated military, the civilians whom you all say would die because the emperor said so.

Wrong.

history.army.mil/books/wwii/MacArthur Reports/MacArthur V2 P2/ch19.htm

>As enemy air raids hammered away at the threadbare fabric of Japan's industrial economy, preparations for the decisive battle were carried resolutely forward. In a series of orders issued during the first week in April, Imperial General Headquarters set in motion the second mobilization of ground troops according to plan.32 Six new Army headquarters,33 eight line combat divisions,34 and six armored brigades were activated in the Homeland and subsequently assigned as follows:35

Hell, they were even forming up new units.

>Hell, they were even forming up new units.
meaningless. These new units would've been untrained and practically unequipped.

>literally all that was left was the civilians, are you actually that dense? Their military had been defeated.
>+5k kamikaze planes prepared, +2k suicide boats prepared, +500 various kinds of underwater suicide vehicles prepared, 900k men prepared to be used against american forces in kyushu, 28 million japanese recruited into the national militia forces, unspecified amounts of chemical and biological weaponry
>japanese military had been defeated

Kek. That is all I will give you, kek.

>meaningless. These new units would've been untrained and practically unequipped.

No, it is not meaningless. Yes, those units would have been poorly trained and even worse equipped. They still would have attempted to fight and almost certainly have done so, leading to high body counts, of themselves if nothing else.

Furthermore, they indicate a desire to continue the struggle, however hopeless it might be. What makes these guys any different from the Volksturrm, or any other last ditch futile effort?

Those units weren't filled with yellow dindus.

>attempts to provide evidence against the fact that the Japanese military had been defeated
>provides evidence which proves they were defeated

Kek, yes they had bodies, because they literally had to conscript their nation. They still have no capacity for war. You re a literal moron, everything you can say will and has been refuted, but you keep repeating the same moronic statements over and over and over, because it's all you have and you don't want to be wrong.

You are waiting for me to stop so you can have the lsat word and remain correct in your mind, have it.

I tried.

>they indicate a desire to continue the struggle
No, they indicate that the Japanese army formed some new units which might as well have existed only on paper in the several years they had to prepare for the inevitable assrape which never came.

>Having troops left to fight is a signal of not being able to fight

Wow

>No, they indicate that the Japanese army formed some new units which might as well have existed only on paper in the several years

You should actually read what's presented to you; it would help you to follow the conversation.

> In a series of orders issued during the first week in April,

April 1945 is months before any invasion, barely enough time to give them basic training, not some years long plan.

And of course, it didn't stop there.

>In the meantime, Imperial General Headquarters had taken steps to effect the third mobilization of ground combat units almost two months earlier than originally planned.68 Pursuant to a series of organization orders, the first of which was issued on 23 May, four new Army headquarters,69 10 coastal combat divisions,70 eight line combat divisions,71 and 14 independent mixed brigades were activated in the Homeland72 and on 19 June, assigned as follows:73

An army raising new units on the eve of invasion is intendeding to fight, however ineffectively. What makes these units different from the Volksturrm? You didn't answer the last time I asked it.

...

Look at this impressive fighting force, such a fearsome warrior conscripted by the nation, such a fearful militia!

Best response on this thread, thank you.

To be fair such a blob of lard would provide good cover after it died.

>mfw there's another Japan thread in Veeky Forums
Is Veeky Forums really tsundere for this shitbox country? I know that this site is a clone of a Mongolian knitting board, but I swear I see these threads in Veeky Forums and /int/ everytime I visit.

Japs got nuked twice and they got curb-stomped so hard that they're the USA's bitch. Their men are betacucks while their women dream of Western cock. I think that's punishment enough. Learn to let things go.

Nah. It worked out. They are a bunch of pillow fuckers that gave us anime so it worked out in the end.

I might have sympathized with the Nips if they actually rebelled against their government for its blatant militarism and imperialistic adventures. The Italians overthrew Mussolini and even the Germans had people who wanted to assassinate Hitler. The Japs didn't do anything but bow their heads and fed the war machine that killed millions of people.

So it's not a tragedy; it's an example of you get what's coming to you.

Nonsense.

The only thing the Japanese did wrong was attack America.

They would have been a good ally against the Chinese and Russian Communists.

And had they remained peaceful with the US and the Allies, we wouldn't be dealing with China becoming the world power it is now.

>Thinks a handful of German officers constitute the totality of the German people

Wew lad!

Tee bee aytch, there was actual resistance to tyranny and mass murder in Nazi Germany.

In Japan, democracy ended because people demanded it.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daisuke_Namba

I mean its not like they have had a history of people trying to kill the royal family.

What is the White Rose? There were also everyday Germans who tried to oppose Nazism.

Nobody liked Militarist Japan and what they were doing in China. It costed them their alliance with Britain, eroded any friendship with the US, and the enmity of their East Asian neighbors.

Even if Japan hasn't attacked the US and the Allies, they still would've faced the Soviets at some point.