[Agent Steel]

I think that the USA had to drop nukes onto Japan to stop Japan from terrorizing their neighbors. Some of the most notorious war crimes in my opinion were committed by the Japanese army. I just think they deserved to get nuked.

Am I wrong for thinking this? Should the USA have done things differently?

[Wellsy]

I'm of the opinion that the Japanese would've surrendered without the bombs and it was merely a means to flex on the USSR that the US has the bomb so don't fuck with us.

So was it justified to kill all those civilians to make a point? Don't think so and haven't heard much in the way of why flexing on the USSR in this way was a necessity if even a brutal one.

[colliric]

It was an immoral, evil decision.

But sadly probably not the wrong decision.

[Pants-of-dog]

The US needed to know what atomic bombs would do to human flesh, and bombing white people was out of the question.

[Politics_Observer]

@Wellsy

The Japanese were a fanatical enemy who didn't believe in "dishonorable surrender." They would literally fight to the last man, woman or child when it came to occupying the Japanese home islands. When our forces occupied Okinawa, many of the civilians chose to jump off a cliff with their children rather than surrender to our forces. The Japanese put up an insanely fanatical fight.

On the same token, I do think the Soviets played a role because they had a large army in East Germany and Stalin made remarks about wanting to go into France. I think Stalin would have used the large Soviet army to invade Western Europe had it not been for the atomic bomb. In addition, in regards to negotiations over Berlin shortly after World War II had ended, the bomb played a big role in Stalin allowing the West to have half of Berlin.

Otherwise, without the bomb, the Soviets would just merely tell the West to go fuck off and not divide Berlin as well, even with the Berlin airlift. So, the bomb played a key role in deterring a Soviet invasion of Western Europe shortly after World War II and in allowing the West to have half of Berlin. The bomb negated any advantages the Soviets had with having massive large numbers of troops in Eastern Europe and East Germany and Stalin knew it. Hence, why he never invaded Western Europe shortly after the defeat of Germany. The bomb checked Stalin's ambitions, lust for power and desire to dominate all of Europe and perhaps much of the world.

[Igor Antunov]

It was callous to drop it on two cities filled with civilians.

Could have dropped it on military bases, naval yards or entire fleets multiple times. Alternatively on sparsely populated rural food producing regions. The message would have been received.

But next to the firebombings it was nothing anyway, the war of annihilation began long before that. Japanese junta instigated the war it got what it deserved. But hundreds of thousands of civilians could have been spared nonetheless.

And besides...

[Politics_Observer]

@Wellsy

Another reason for the use of the atomic bomb was because the Soviets had gone into Manchuria and were using money given to them by the Lend Lease program to empower Chinese communists so they could seize power in China. Chinese communists would have never won the Chinese Civil War if it wasn't for the Lend Lease supplies and money that the Soviets gave them that they got via the U.S. during World War II.

Plus, they divided Korea into North and South Korea. The U.S. didn't want the Soviets invading or assisting with invading the Japanese home Islands and dividing the Japanese home islands into North and South Japan, with one being communist and the other being a capitalist democracy. Thus, the use of the atomic bomb prevented the Soviets from getting onto the Japanese home islands and dividing the country much like they did to Korea.

[Politics_Observer]

@Igor Antunov

Yeah, that's true, it's not a war crime if you win. Troops on all sides committed horrendous war crimes. But only the side that lost got tried for war crimes. Had the U.S. lost to the Japanese, I am certain the Japanese would have charged U.S. General Curtis LeMay for war crimes in relation to the fire bombings of Tokyo. But all sides committed war crimes. Here in the U.S. one of the war crimes talked about that the Japanese committed against our forces is the Bataan Death March in the Phillipines where many U.S. service members died on a death march to their POW camps. The Japanese were pretty cruel to the POWs on that march and executed many of them summarily and beat them severely while they walked a very long ways to their POW camps in the merciless tropical sun.

[Igor Antunov]

@Wellsy

Another reason for the use of the atomic bomb was because the Soviets had gone into Manchuria and were using money given to them by the Lend Lease program to empower Chinese communists so they could seize power in China. Chinese communists would have never won the Chinese Civil War if it wasn't for the Lend Lease supplies and money that the Soviets gave them that they got via the U.S. during World War II.

Plus, they divided Korea into North and South Korea. The U.S. didn't want the Soviets invading or assisting with invading the Japanese home Islands and dividing the Japanese home islands into North and South Japan, with one being communist and the other being a capitalist democracy. Thus, the use of the atomic bomb prevented the Soviets from getting onto the Japanese home islands and dividing the country much like they did to Korea.

This is all so very silly. Muh lendlease meant nothing during and after august storm. Also there was no money provided. It was equipment mainly vehicles and processed ready to use fuel in return for money. Soviets had little interest in the far east beyond securing their borders. This is why they left China alone the moment Mao gained the upper hand in the civil war, and why they provided little direct aid to north korea (the chinese did instead).

Soviets were focused on europe.

[Politics_Observer]

@Igor Antunov

I disagree, the Lend Lease program was a massive boost to the Soviet Army and to the Chinese communists that used the supplies/money from the lend lease program that they got to win the Chinese Civil War. The Soviets had a lot of troops to pay for and supply to keep up the fight against the Nazis and the Lend Lease program was key to helping the Soviet army stay well supplied and fighting well. Armies cost a lot of money and supplies and the Soviets weren't exactly rich.

[Wellsy]

@Wellsy

The Japanese were a fanatical enemy who didn't believe in "dishonorable surrender." They would literally fight to the last man, woman or child when it came to occupying the Japanese home islands. When our forces occupied Okinawa, many of the civilians chose to jump off a cliff with their children rather than surrender to our forces. The Japanese put up an insanely fanatical fight.

On the same token, I do think the Soviets played a role because they had a large army in East Germany and Stalin made remarks about wanting to go into France. I think Stalin would have used the large Soviet army to invade Western Europe had it not been for the atomic bomb. In addition, in regards to negotiations over Berlin shortly after World War II had ended, the bomb played a big role in Stalin allowing the West to have half of Berlin.

Otherwise, without the bomb, the Soviets would just merely tell the West to go fuck off and not divide Berlin as well, even with the Berlin airlift. So, the bomb played a key role in deterring a Soviet invasion of Western Europe shortly after World War II and in allowing the West to have half of Berlin. The bomb negated any advantages the Soviets had with having massive large numbers of troops in Eastern Europe and East Germany and Stalin knew it. Hence, why he never invaded Western Europe shortly after the defeat of Germany. The bomb checked Stalin's ambitions, lust for power and desire to dominate all of Europe and perhaps much of the world.

While I can speak not speculate much on it's impact on Soviet policies and political actions, there is a tenable revisionist history which proposes that Japan was ready to surrender prior to the bombing. Their terms was to allow Japan to keep the empower as a figurehead and was allowed after the bombings anyway.
https://www.atomicheritage.org/history/debate-over-japanese-surrender

[Patrickov]

I do agree that the bomb served to contain the Soviets more than to punish the Japanese.

The debate should be focused on whether that's justified and / or necessary, but in that case it is actually some kind of the Trolley Problem.

In some sense, the Japan government asked for it or had to take responsibility of it, regardless of the bombing's purpose.
Had they surrendered with the Germans this would not have happened for sure.

[Politics_Observer]

@Wellsy

I am certain Soviet actions and some of Stalin's statements played some role in the U.S. decision to use the bomb. The Japanese also putting up a fanatical fight also played a role too. The war between our troops and the Japanese was basically turning into a race war of extermination too as the war dragged on. Japanese soldiers would pretend to surrender only to blow themselves up and some of our troops with a grenade given they felt surrender was "dishonorable." Eventually, our troops stopped taking Japanese prisoners because of this and it increased prejudice towards the Japanese. That and some of the cruel war crimes committed by the Japanese against our troops didn't help either. The use of the bomb kinda crystalized how a race of war extermination was just spinning out of control. This is the nature of war. It is a dog, once unleashed can spin out of control to where nobody can any longer control it and can very well end humanity.

[colliric]

And besides...

Except when you're Breaker Morant acting on orders and interpreting "take no prisoners" in the traditional way the order is understood and it's embarrassing as fuck for your British superiors who then have to legally kill you to cover it all up.

[Politics_Observer]

@colliric

Illegal revenge killings for the death of a soldier's comrades are common in war time. We had a case of that in Afghanistan where one of our soldiers witnessed one of his fellow soldiers get blown in half. Later he went on revenge killings of Afghan civilians. He was court martial-ed, convicted and given a long prison sentence, but to my knowledge was not executed.

[Patrickov]

Except when you're Breaker Morant acting on orders and interpreting "take no prisoners" in the traditional way the order is understood and it's embarrassing as fuck for your British superiors who then have to legally kill you to cover it all up.

There are a lot of ways to follow orders. Breaker Morant asks for it, and the British are wise to off him.

One can say Carrie Lam, the CCP agents / collaborators in HK and HK Police are all merely following orders. But the way they do it is so disgusting that any sensible master will have them removed or killed to cover the crimes. CCP and a significant portion of Mainland Chinese are simply so arrogant that they actually take credit of it. This actually ease our confusion, as they make it clear that nothing short of their total subjugation will achieve justice.

[Igor Antunov]

There are a lot of ways to follow orders. Breaker Morant asks for it, and the British are wise to off him.

One can say Carrie Lam, the CCP agents / collaborators in HK and HK Police are all merely following orders. But the way they do it is so disgusting that any sensible master will have them removed or killed to cover the crimes. CCP and a significant portion of Mainland Chinese are simply so arrogant that they actually take credit of it. This actually ease our confusion, as they make it clear that nothing short of their total subjugation will achieve justice.

Deaths from police actions in Hong Kong during protests: 0

Now tell us more about war crimes and dropping nukes on cities.

[Politics_Observer]

@Igor Antunov

We were liberating the Japanese from militarism. We were also kindly ensuring they wouldn't fall under communist tyranny. We weren't occupiers. We were kind, benevolent, enlightened, liberators. The Japanese loved having us there. They greeted our kind liberating troops with flowers and were eternally grateful .

[Rancid]

What is more important is that no one has used the bomb since.

[colliric]

@colliric

Illegal revenge killings for the death of a soldier's comrades are common in war time. We had a case of that in Afghanistan where one of our soldiers witnessed one of his fellow soldiers get blown in half. Later he went on revenge killings of Afghan civilians. He was court martial-ed, convicted and given a long prison sentence, but to my knowledge was not executed.

The difference being that Morant was ordered to "take no prisoners" and that is classically interpreted by anyone with half a brain to mean "take no prisoners, kill them all"

British basically executed him to cover their own communications fuck up.