Couldn't they have dropped the bomb somewhere else than a city with quarter million people as a warning first?

couldn't the Japanese have invaded somewhere other than every country with a Pacific coast?

Mess with the bull, you get the horns

It can't be helped

I think you'll find that even the Japanese agree that bombing Nagasaki and Hiroshima was the right thing to do.

Like slapping an hysterical woman.

after Iwo Jima and Okinawa whatever compassion we had for the motherfuckers was gone

This was actually an option they considered to be on the table, in case anyone didn't know that. I'm trying incredibly hard to remember why they didn't do it. They DID drop a shitload of papers ahead of time saying to get the women and children out, etc. but I think the Japs thought it was some propaganda ploy. I read about this in McCullough's Truman biography, which is about the size of a dictionary, so excuse my memory lapses please.

Pretty sure we lost it after Pearl Harbor, while the Jap ambassador was in D.C. negotiating with the US and the planes started raining down in Hawaii.

They real question is: Couldn't they have dropped it somewhere else than the biggest Christian Church in Japan?

I like the part where they wiped out a shitload of American POWs too, was in very good taste

The US is truly the worthy son of perfidious Albion

I'm sure you'd be much happier of the Allies launched an invasion which would results in millions more of Japanese and Allied deaths and the complete destruction of Japan

Better slap her on both cheeks to be sure.

No, because killing hundreds of thousands of civilians is okay if you intend to spare your own troops.

Yes, this is what Americucks actually believe.

doesn't matter anymore

That was with a fuckton of bombs and bombers, though. You only needed one bomber and one bomb for Hiroshima.

The US had killed way more people in the firebombing campaigns. Aside from that, more Japanese (and Americans) would have died in a land invasion than died from the atomic bombs. The Japanese had already proven that they would either fight to the death or kill themselves before surrendering 80% of the time in previously conquered Japanese territories.

>because killing hundreds of thousands of civilians is okay if you intend to spare your own troops.
G-d bless this US

Priortizing the safety of their own soldiers and people over some slantys and krautcucks to minimize their own casualties while spreading democracy and liberty throughout the world. Something every nation with an inch of self-dignity should strive for.

The firebombing of Tokyo actually killed more people too, yet apparently it's okay because it wasn't a nuclear bomb.

Both cities were major points of strategic importance to the Japanese Empire. Hiroshima had a major manufacturing plant vital to their war effort and Nagasaki was a major port of call for the Imperial Navy. Both targets had strategic value. Originally Kyoto was slated to be one of the two cities, but only a whim of one of the chief planners spared it, because he had visited the city and didn't want to destroy its beauty.

>the Japanese didn't do anything to deserve this!!! Amerikkka is the bad guy!!!
baka at all the cucks on here

Couldnt they have not started a fight they couldnt win?

>start a war with industrial powerhouse
>get btfo
>refuse to surrender due to societal autism under the guise of ""culture""
>get super btfo

> Use Army translator
> Probably some private / corporal
> No time to proof

The papers probably said, "Look up, bitches."

I was taught in highschool the US dropped the second bomb to show of to the USSR the first one wasn't a fluke and they had multiple nukes
how true is this?

Couldn't Japan have not bombed Pearl Harbor? Anyway it was for the best, the radiation mutated their brains and gave us kawaii modern anime.

>I was taught in highschool
No you weren't, this is bullshit you heard on Veeky Forums 2 years ago

>high school teachers never teach you bullshit

They had been firebombing Japanese cities for some time before the nukes fell and they still weren't surrendering, the US government probably considered that their fair warning.

Nice citations. Anyone, the Japs being such a brave and honor-based society, we didn't want to embarrass them by not acquiescing in their desire to die for their emperor and country.

>we
anyone who links themselves to the actions of a nation 70 years ago is to biased to ever seriously discuss a topic

Any historian worth the air they breathe would know that the use of any nuclear bombs was unnecessary and that the soviet invasion of Manchuria contributed the most to the Japanese surrender, although that is easy to say in hindsight.

It was war, there was plenty of the same occurring across the world.

>firebomb everything
>drop two fucking nukes
>muh honour, Japan never surrenders
>stage coup to never surrender

Holy fuck

t. weeaboo

They got lucky it wasn't dropped on Tokyo or Osaka

Anyone who can't distinguish between literal and figurative identifications of oneself with other things/events is suffering from autism. When people call the Titanic "she" do you bitch at them for thinking a ship was a woman, too?

maybe she got it from Veeky Forums
however it was 8 years ago so i highly doubt it

The Jews (von Neumann, etc.) wanted Christians to kill each others.
google.com/culturalinstitute/beta/exhibit/QRfpvy4V

Well they did with horrible fire bombs

This
Continuing a conventional war, either by continued conventional bombing or a direct invasion would have meant horrific casualties on both sides. Civilians were already brainwashed with propaganda enough to fight invading forces and would have been slaughtered even if the Americans used the gentlest possible treatment of civilians (not at all guaranteed).

Add to that, the Soviet Red army was wrapping things up in East Germany. They hadn't done much against Japan up until that point, but they were technically at war. There would have been no reason for the Russians to not just snap up a Japanese island or two.

The Atomic bombs were a big enough shock to disrupt even the fanatical Japanese military officers morale and get them to surrender.

No.

Hiroshima was a major military installation. Nagasaki was critical to japanese industry, and had up to that point escaped bombing. The answer is no.

Not at all. They dropped the second bomb because the japs didn't respond after they dropped the first.

strawpoll.me/13523930
relevant

I for one consider the bombings of pearl harbour as genocide

Honestly it surprises me how much a big of a deal people make out of the nukes.
The firebombing campaign was far worse for them.

I for one consider all of Japan's conquests in southeast asia to be genocide
One of these three posts is actually correct

this

They needed a city that had not been that badly bombed to properly test it, they discussed just letting the japs see a test but decided against it for obvious reasons.

our target was the x-3 compound.

>x-3 compound
please...continue...

It seemed like the best option at the time.

it WAS the best option at the time

the jew fears the samurai

"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.

That number is bogus and you know it.

On Tokyo alone, the conservative death rate is estimated atleast 100K. More than 60 Japanese cities were destroyed. To put that in perspective, there were roughly 50 cities with more than 100K population. Tokyo alone had >1M during the air raids. There were handful of other cities with > 1M population at the time. All but 5 Japanese cities were spared. Destruction of cities ranged from total to a quarter for almost all of them. If we assume 10% death rate (from tokyo) as base number, then with just 2 other cities, that would easily reach the 330K casualties from fire bomb.

More than likely the fire bombing probably killed atleast a million. If 40 of the 100K cities had 10K casulties each (10%), that would be 400K. If 4 cities with >1M had had 100K casualties, it would be 400K, the rest combined can be 200K and it would be a low estimate of 1M death from fire bombing.

>wars cannot be won by destroying women and children
WWII's pacific theater begs to differ : ^ )

According to the diary of Grand Chamberlain Hisanori Fujita, the Emperor, looking for a decisive battle (tennōzan), replied that it was premature to seek peace "unless we make one more military gain"

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

Start shit get hit

>the use of a weapon which served no purpose but the evaporation of civilians is okay because they would an hero

I have said it a million times over, I will always take the opinions of those who served and 'won' the pacific war over sheltered retards on the internet.

;^)

I don't know what you're trying to prove, but Japan was NOT ready to surrender just because they were being bombed and blockaded. The japanese high command made no efforts to surrender after three years of bombing and blockades. In fact, when offered peace, they had rejected it in favor of fighting on. Hirohito was not prepared to surrender unless he got his final decisive battle.

Throughout history a lot of defeated civilisations do not work for peace or surrender as soon as defeat unavoidable, just saying.

Whether or not this justifies the use of an unparalleled destructive weapon is atypical.

the firebombings were a worse war crime than the atomic bombs.

>Throughout history, a lot of people did not work for peace or surrender as soon as defeat was unavoidable
Japan was not "defeated" until they signed a surrender treaty. Until that point, they continued to rape and murder civillians in china and launch attacks against the US mainland.

Weebs are dumb as shit, but what else is new?

>I have said it a million times over, I will always take the opinions of those who served and 'won' the pacific war over sheltered retards on the internet.

>"...the Potsdam declaration in July, demand[ed] that Japan surrender unconditionally or face 'prompt and utter destruction.' MacArthur was appalled. He knew that the Japanese would never renounce their emperor, and that without him an orderly transition to peace would be impossible anyhow, because his people would never submit to Allied occupation unless he ordered it. Ironically, when the surrender did come, it was conditional, and the condition was a continuation of the imperial reign. Had the General's advice been followed, the resort to atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been unnecessary."

> "When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor."

MacArthur.

>"During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude..."

Eisenhower.

But yeah, continue, Mr Wiki Scholar.

>no military justificiation for dropping the bomb
Coming from the guy who wanted to nuke china for their involvement in korea? The postdam declaration did not call for the outright removal of the emperor, it called for him to release power, which he eventually did as a result of the atomic bombs. Allowing the emperor to remain in power, which is what the japanese wanted, would have been unacceptable to all parties involved.

>It was my belief that japan was, at the moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of "face"
Although Suzuki might indeed have seen peace as a distant goal, he had no design to achieve it within any immediate time span or on terms acceptable to the Allies. His own comments at the conference of senior statesmen gave no hint that he favored any early cessation of the war ... Suzuki's selections for the most critical cabinet posts were, with one exception, not advocates of peace either.

>we

>Japan went around Asia on a murder spree with every one of its enemies.
>What Japan did was genocide
>Japan gets genocided back
I don't see a problem. Don't start shit and you won't get hit.

Actually thats a very simplistic false narrative.

Japan went around freeing other states from european colonialism and getting their support. The europeans fought back for control over their colonialism.

Ultimately europeans lost this cause. Our european warfront made it untenable to keep the colony going much further. Vietnam was one of French's last attempt at keeping their colony, they failed. America tried to do the same, they failed.

>Japan went around freeing other states from European colonialism and getting their support.
What the Philippines, China, Korea, Singapore, and more. They didn't want Japanese imperialism and were pretty okay, hell Korea was in the middle of modernization right before they got invaded by Japan.

Japan wasn't liberating anyone and was being an imperialist ass.

There are people that hate the Japanese, but they also hate the western imperialism. The modern drum is Japanese are "more" wrong since the western countries won the war.

On to the matter of each countries. Phillipines was an American colony taken from Spain. US only freed Philippines due to their hypocritical stance. China. China's collapse was due to western imperialism. Japanese were a minor issue to the Chinese. Their main "anti-japanese" sentiment only came after Mao got into power and they spread their propaganda. Before this, the main issue was the European imperialism. Korea was initially freed from Qing by the Japanese half a century before WWII. It was then slowly integrated as a Japanese colony. They had a reason to hate the Japanese however not so much. They became independent after the WWII. The later propaganda is what keeps the anti-japanese drum playing. Singapore was a British colony. After the war, the British hold was weakened considerably. This led to their eventual independence.

>The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor.

This fact is key.
Their only condition of surrender would have been keeping the Emperor on his throne.
But this was too much to ask because we wanted an unconditional surrender.
After committing the greatest war crime in history, we got our unconditional surrender.

But we allowed the Emperor to retain his throne.

What on earth was the point of this sadism? Preventing land invasion casualties isn't an excuse. Russia isn't and excuse.

As it turns out you focus your military facilities in your major port cities. There was no awesome purely military target to be had for a suitable demonstration.

Also the cheerful way in which they bombed civilian centers up to that point should remind you that they had a fundamentally different mindset than we do

>The modern drum is Japanese are "more" wrong since the western countries won the war.
The western countries didn't go on a genocidal rampage across Asia unlike the Japanese, user. There is more reason than "Muh winners are always right." fallacy you brough up.

The point of the other countries brought up proved Japan wasn't liberating anyone and was being an Imperialist ass.

>China's collapse was due to western imperialism. Japanese were a minor issue to the Chinese.
Japan participated in the Boxer Rebellion and tried to carve up China. It also fought them in the Sino-Japanese War I. It doesn't help China was in a middle of civil-war and Japan invading it while it was weakened is a huge fucking deal especially since they false flagged to get a large chunk of it and ALL factions (Warlords, Communists, Nationalist) teamed up to try and push Japan the fuck out.

Philippines was going to get its own government and yet you claimed Japan was liberating it when they went ahead and fucked up the islands. Japan was a complete ass during WWII and had everything coming to them.

Try to remember that the Japanese government was not a unified body at this stage, as is demonstrated by the failed coup attempt on the person of the Emperor right prior to his announcement of surrender. You had your army staff, you had your navy staff, you had your Imperial household and your bureacratic grandees.

Consider this when you're trying to calculate the state of mind of Japan and it's government right up to the atomic bombings. It would have been hard for anyone to say whether they were ready to surrender or not. We bombed the shit out of the Germans and it was still necessary to roll tanks onto their doorstep. I imagine many people thought this would be true of Japan as well. So you have this new wunderweapon .... what do you do?

>Try to remember that the Japanese government was not a unified body at this stage.
Incorrect. Japan had a unified government for a long time, the coup you mentioned was committed by a Major of the Imperial Army Guards (Who basically guarded the Emperor's home in the capital.) who got butthurt because his General (The guy in charge of the Guards) didn't want to help him, agreed with the surrender, and got murdered by that Major who then forged his commanding officer's signature to get the Guards to get them to hold the building hostage.

The rebellion literally ended when another General of the army showed up and told everybody to fuck off with the order and the Major who tried it, killed himself after he realized how much he fucked up. The General who talked the guards down then killed himself feeling ashamed he had to go out and tell his soldiers to fuck off.

The Navy and Army were not in sync when conducting war operations, but the government of Japan was still active and unified. The Army who dominated China could be counted as its own sub-empire, but even then when somebody from the main islands showed up to enforce their rules they did what they said.

tl:dr - Stop being a weeboo and a Japanese apologist.

>The western countries didn't go on a genocidal rampage across Asia unlike the Japanese, user
Actually there are plenty of prevasive human abuses and slavery-like conditions the colonialists did. The European colonialism is an endless era of death/destruction/enslavement of non-European culture/civilization.

You're 100% wrong on this one, boyo. The Japs were already discussing surrender with the soviets as mediator 2 days before the bomb hit

There's a grim saying in Indonesia that goes: "3,5 years of being colonised by the Japanese was worse than 350 years of colonisation by the Dutch."

All the Purple Hearts still being given out to soldiers wounded in combat were produced in 1945, in preparation for an invasion of mainland Japan.
Gives you an idea about how many casualties the American government was expecting.

Both cities were perfectly valid military targets. If you are demonstrating a weapon you might as well do actual damage with it as well

The point of the atomic bombs was beating the Japanese in submission once and for all. Just giving the emperor what he wanted wasn't enough.
Don't forget there were still hardliners willing to sacrifice their entire nation to fight the coming invasion. They attempted a coup after the first nuclear bombing, after all.