Damn right it was!
@M0RT0S, mess with the bull and you get the horns! Mess with America and yo ass gets nuked! It was war people! They would of done the same!
Those bombs were mass murder
@benderama, it's call war, there's a difference
@MrLenny, there isn’t a difference, war or no, killing someone is murder
@benderama, true war is self defense, it's fighting for fewer lives lost. Fewer Japanese died as a result of the A-Bombs than would have died if we had a long drawn out war. Same thing on our side, which is what our president was thinking about. We're defending ourselves and our fellow Americans, it's self defense.
@MrLenny, don’t bother. This guy is beyond any reason.
@MrLenny, Not True. The Japanese were already discussing terms of their surrender when the second bomb was dropped, and on an unintended target. One that was far more populated, and with more civilians, rather than soldiers. The first bomb did its job, and then some. The second bomb was absolutely unnecessary.
@MrLenny, war is murder
@Berntley, I thought the Japanese said absolutely no surrender after the first bomb so the US dropped the second. After which they started to discuss it figuring if we had 2, we had many more or at least more were possible.
There's a user on here who really nerds out on this history. He said the Japanese would rather have given up to the Americans than face the Russians who would have really turned all of Japan to shjt. They took a risk that we would be nicer than the Ruskies.
They were right.
@Berntley, The Japanese army didn't want to surrender, they could've kept going. It was the Emperor that announced Japan's surrender and he almost got killed for it before he could, as the army didn't want this. The 2nd bomb wasn't enough to convince everyone is what I'm saying
@mas2de, I too heard exactly that! Bc I grew up in another country we didn’t learn as much as what the USA did in it. Honestly I didn’t grasp how big WWII was till my sophomore year in high school. But those Japanese man! All about honor, have to admire them as well
@Berntley, From the reports that I had heard, the Japanese didn't believe it was a single bomb that did that, they thought it was another firebombing. A peculiar one yes but a firebombing. Then when the second was dropped was when they realized that we were primed to annihilate them.
Give this a read. According to this, Japan had been almost begging for surrender talks for months, and we ignored it. Russia wasn’t even focused on Japan, but we were focused on Russia, so we used Japan as a staging ground for our capabilities. We had already devastated Japan. There was no niceness about it.
@Colonel Kurtz, see above
@seeUpee, see above
@Factory BOY, see above
@Berntley, The traditionalist school disagrees with your article, the Revisionist School agrees with your article. The general Japanese opinions I could find disagree with you, also on an academic level.
Citing one article to substantiate your argument gives us all room to cite other opposing articles, meaning we end up arguing like an academic debate, which this is (in other places) meaning none of us can truly confirm our ideas.
@Factory BOY, If you’ve got grounds to question any little bit of something that’s heralded as an absolute good, then it should be called into question, because there is no absolute good. It doesn’t take a lot of digging, or even the slightest bit of mental gymnastics to understand that, while the ultimate outcome of WWII would be considered a success (the genocide against the Jews by the Nazis was halted) there were a lot more political agendas at play than just “save the Jews”. Nothing in this article seems even the least bit outlandish to me.
@Berntley, The problem is not that your argument is not substantiated, the problem is there are many substantiated arguments to be made, and you are presenting this particular argument without attention to others of similar standing, and so presenting that argument as fact, despite it currently being an academic debate.
@Berntley, Everytime I read crap from the National Interest, I pick up tidbits of total bull throughout the entire document that I then go research and find that they're bull. Hard to trust a site like that. (They show up on my news feed because I clicked on their articles about the F-18, F-22 and F-35)
That also entirely disagrees with every history book I've ever read and every version of history I've heard of how WWII came to a close.
Good on you for citing something though. Thanks.
edit: looks like you had the part about them already surrending right but for the wrong reasons and they had not yet announced it to us. Had they announced it to the US at the time the POTUS would have immediately called off the attack as it weighed heavy on him to destroy another entire city, even if it were directly above the target. (original target or Nagasaki)
This lecture from the Carnegie Council supports what that WWII history buff on here stated a long while ago and my understanding of what happened and why.
Wikipedia states the same general storyline. Don't feed me the BS of Wikipedia can't be trusted. We all know exactly how it works there.
And from History.com
@benderama, whenever you live, it was founded by someone killing others to take it. The fact that you can be there right now being such a little ignorant snowflake shows that you are enjoying what others have died for.
@seeUpee, *rape of Nanking smolders in the background*
@benderama, hahaha. You little bïtch. You feel better downvoting all ma shït you ignorant snowflake? Hahahahah.
No chill, eh?
More like removed it from existence