Are americans actually taught that dropping the nukes was their country's greatest mistake?

An invasion would have costed a lot more lives.

foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/30/the-bomb-didnt-beat-japan-stalin-did/

We're taught that ending the war quickly with nukes was better than starting a land invasion like we did on Okinawa.

No. I can't think of any professor or teacher I had that denounced it. I do know if any president apologized for it, we are legally allowed to tar and feather them after their impeachment.

No, most are either neutral or maintain the argument that a land invasion would’ve been more costly in both Japanese and Americans lives. Which is pretty much accurate anyway.

yikes @ all these american puppets ITT singing the american party line

>it's justified because more lives would've been lost with a land invasion!

so that means crashing 2 commercial airliners into buildings and killing thousands of civilians is also justified?

I heard one theory that if we hadn't used the nukes, then the USSR would have invaded and then split Japan like what happened in Korea.

We are taught that it was based and redpilled. Like when I was in HS after they showed us the Pearl Harbor movie people unironically started shouting "Two wasn't enough" and that they totally deserved it. Dumb teens are too easily manipulated by Hollyjew movies

ah yes, a surrender that's not really a surrender

>conditional

Yeah lets take a conditional surrender from the aggressors. Or lets nuke them and make them a non-factor.

>I'm going to drop an atomic bomb on the heads of innocent children, elderly, women and men but that's fine because an invasion doe!!!

They weren't going to surrender, it was going to be like the invasion of Germany. The emperor would have taken turns sniping Americans and Russians as they storm the city block surrounding his palace.

can't believe this level of stupid answer is allowed

Even you aren’t stupid enough to believe that

break out of your brainwashing

they should have nuked all our country

We offered surrender before the first bomb, and after the first bomb. Both times you refused. So what part is incorrect?

That doesn't seem to follow. What was the goal? What was avoided that would have been worse to accomplish the same goal?

The US pledged to make force the Axis to surrender unconditionally as a reparation for starting the war.

What was stupid?

>An invasion would have costed a lot more lives.

Again this stupid argument....
>We'll kill all the jews because on the long run it's better for peace

That's true, but what defines a genocide is the intent. Americans didn't try to wipe out Japanese people as a group.

If you can’t see the contextual differences between WW2 and the 9/11 attacks it’s you who’s too far gone.

It's like those anime villains
>gotta kill everybody to achieve peace mhwahahah

Two cities =/= All of Japan

I can't believe you don't realize the hypocrisy behind this argument...
Following the same logic it is morally adequate to nuke Washington and New York to stop the Americans from keeping interfering in the world affairs and causing pain and destruction...

I never heard anyone question the ethics of the nuclear bombs on Japan in the Netherlands.

It is justified if it meant that the attacker didn't have to fight through millions of militant Americans to achieve the same goal.

Different circumstances, we are talking about one of the Axis powers in WW2. The country of kamikazes that used women and children as human shields. The ones that were brutal and relentless in China and weren't willing to give up, so much so that a second bomb had to be dropped to fully convince them. What is absolutely atrocious on the US side is how they pardoned Shirō Ishii and left him go unpunished.
Dead people are dead people, and the same children, elderly, women and men would have been killed, possibly even slower, but a lot more. And as far as I understand, American planes did warn the people to evacuate their cities days before.
False equivalence. Exterminating all Jews was a plan based on lies, while Japan was a very real brutal Axis power who wasn't willing to give up. The emperor wasn't a joke and wars aren't won with flowers and cake. It was a tough decision that ended the war.

I suppose you would only be satisfied that final victory over the villainous Japanese Empire was achieved through the erection of a funeral pyre the likes of which has yet to be seen among mankind.

Well you know, a war is a war

*Dead people are dead people, and the same children, elderly, women and men would have been killed, possibly even slower, but a lot more, _during an invasion_

I don't remember much about the subject, maybe some talk about how the Japanese were already planning on surrendering due to the Soviet invasion but for the most part the legitimacy of the act wasn't questioned much

Okay, well then the war should have continued, and caused a significantly larger amount of destruction, and loss of life.

the soviets invaded after the dropping of the first bomb, the second bomb came a day after soviet invasion of Manchuria, which is in china

Never forget pearl harbour. Never forget who attacked America first.

Attached: 9080740.png (952x1268, 899K)

ITT:Sub 85 IQ responses
Consider this:
>what are warning leaflets
>what is military necessity(They were industrial cities contributing to the war effort)
>what is cult of the emperor

Attached: largebrainlet.jpg (226x223, 8K)

>Assistant Secretary Bard was convinced that a standard bombardment and naval blockade would be enough to force Japan into surrendering. Even more, he had seen signs for weeks that the Japanese were actually already looking for a way out of the war. His idea was for the United States to tell the Japanese about the bomb, the impending Soviet entry into the war, and the fair treatment that citizens and the Emperor would receive at the coming Big Three conference. Before the bombing occurred, Bard pleaded with Truman to neither drop the bombs (at least not without warning the population first) nor to invade the entire country, proposing to stop the bloodshed.[15]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Opposition

Why are non Japanese love to talking about two nukes?

I've never seen Japanese making nuke thread on Jow Forums.

I think when it comes to situations like these, context is extremely important, nukes in your given example is a pretty large overreaction compared to the horror that was world war 2. If the U.S started annexing it’s neighbors and setting up death marches and genocides then perhaps it would indeed be necessary.

I just wonder if usa citizen know about starfish prime operation, or is it just something that they just never heard about ?

>Assistant Secretary Bard was convinced that a standard bombardment and naval blockade would be enough to force Japan into surrendering
Objectively not true. Japan didn't surrender after the first bomb was dropped. That's why they dropped a second one. And warning leaflets were dropped.

War was inevitable, Pearl Harbour was a pretty good idea desu, unfortunate that most of the aircraft carriers were away that day.

it's among the threads designed to get replies, and sometimes it's part (in fact most often a part) of anti-american trolling

ok 65 iq brainlet

Stupid brainwashed mutt. I'm going to tell you the truth, just read it carefully :
1 America was the aggressor. Pearl harbor was a pathetic pretext to invade all of japan. Is it reasonable to answer a small attack on a military base in the middle of the pacific by invading a country?
2 The choice was not between "invade all Japan" and "drop two nukes to end the war" ; This is how it is presented today by Americans but this is just not true. A peace deal was negotiated already and was about to be concluded. Americans decided to go full warmongering by launching an ultimatum to improve their negotiation position.

So here comes the real reason behind the nuking of two high populated cities : obtain a non-conditional surrendering instead of a negotiated peace....
I don't call that moral... at all

you're just spurring argument because you want replies

>unfortunate
You ok Britain?

Really, American's greatest mistake in all of this was this

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shirō_Ishii#War_crime_immunity

People should be complaining about it, not the bombs.

>Other U.S. military officers who disagreed with the necessity of the bombings include General of the Army Douglas MacArthur,[87][88] Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy (the Chief of Staff to the President), Brigadier General Carter Clarke (the military intelligence officer who prepared intercepted Japanese cables for U.S. officials), Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz (Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet), Fleet Admiral William Halsey Jr. (Commander of the US Third Fleet), and even the man in charge of all strategic air operations against the Japanese home islands, then-Major General Curtis LeMay:

> The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan.
> —Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, [79]

> The use of [the atomic bombs] 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.
> —Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman, 1950, [89]

>The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.
> —Major General Curtis LeMay, XXI Bomber Command, September 1945, [90]

> The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment ... It was a mistake to ever drop it ... [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it
> —Fleet Admiral William Halsey Jr., 1946, [90]

The "warning leaflets" obviously didn't mention an atomic bomb, the US had been air dropping leaflets for years prior to that.

Unfortunate for the Japs I mean.

sounds dumb, weren't most soviet troops on the european front? it would have taken several months to move them to the literal opposite side of the world

naturally, you don't tell your enemy where you're attacking them specifically, and with what

this is a war you stupid bastard

>America was the aggressor
You are either trolling or blinded by your anti-Americanism. America wasn't the aggressor in WW2, the Axis were. And I hate America, trust me.
You are presenting me with opinions that are wrong based on facts.

>pearl harbor
>small attack
>"its ok that they killed people because it wasn't an act of aggression"

Attached: 1542007492542.jpg (1280x847, 260K)

That “peace deal” involved Japan keeping their empire. So is Japan keeping their conquered territories, filled with millions of mistreated people’s and thousands dead corpses at the hands of the Japanese also a moral issue for you? Or do you throw out morals when the United States isn’t involved?

well, at least one of the rabid antiamericans isn't' a complete retard at the same time

>small military base
Japan needed Oil to maintain their war industry. The US stopped giving Japan OUR oil because of what they were doing in China and French Indochina. They also wanted to take the Philippines which was a US territory at the time. More than half of our navy was stationed there, they planned on destroying our navy so we couldn't fight back. They didn't count on American industrial capability though to outmatch them.

>there was options for surrender before the nukes
Yeah ones that didn't punish Japan. The US pledged to enforce unconditional surrender on all Axis members, this meant full occupation and a complete overthrow of their regimes. Japan wouldn't accept that.

Parl harbor can't be the excuse of two nuke and carpet bomb of Tokyo and Osaka and other carpet bombing of Japanese city.

Let’s see how many civilians were killed and compere.

>Pearl Harbor killed 68civilians are killed.
68civilians
Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed 300,000 civilians

Bombing of Tokyo
75,000–200,000 civilian deaths; roughly 1,000,000 displaced

Bombing of Osaka
10,000 civilians died

Bombing of Nagoya
113,460 buildings were destroyed during the raids, with 3,866 people killed and 471,701 driven from their homes.

Bombing of Kobe
8,841 were confirmed to have been killed in the resulting firestorms, which destroyed an area of three square miles and included 21% of Kobe's urban area. At the time, the city covered an area of 14 square miles (36 km2). More than 650,000 people had their homes destroyed, and the homes of another million people were damaged.
On 5 June that same year, Kobe was bombed again. Incendiaries dropped from 530 bombers destroyed 3.8 square miles (9.8 km2) of the city, and 51% of the built-up area of the city was damaged

Bombing of Yokohama
8000 ~10000 were killed.

Bombing of Kyouto
100 were killed
(They didn't bombed Kyoto harder becouse it was plan of nuke Kyoto.)

Bombing of Nagasaki omutra
500 were killed

Battle of Okinawa
From 77,166 killed to 110,000 killed (US estimate)
More than 7,000 captured

Still much more countless city of Japan was mass bombing by USA and two atomic bomb.

sys.Jow Forums.org/derefer?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FAttack_on_Pearl_Harbor%23cite_note-Gailey1995-10
>Civilians killed: 68
>sixty-eight

>filled with millions of mistreated people’s and thousands dead corpses at the hands of the Japanese also a moral issue for you?

You make suppositions on what would have happen if America had signed this deal. It was totally possible to have a sort of international supervision of their empire, like in Germany, or even negotiate a bit further to make them renounce their empire, it was obvious that a deal would have had to be signed anyway.
The reality is that it's your country that did atrocities by launching those nukes on innocents.

So who started war? bitch?

Pearl Harbor wasn't the excuse, the entire WW2 that you and Hitler started was.

they dropped them on japanese subhuman land, so nothing wrong about it

good argument
Not explicitly, but it's not like it matters.They HAD seen the fire bombings of Tokyo, if the bombs were much worse than anything they had seen before, like what the leaflet said, it would be dumb to not escape.But of course many didn't, duty to nation, cult of the emperor and all that.

he didn't start anything, those in control of his country ~80 years ago did

The treatment of Japan in the case of bombings was no different from any other Axis member, or the allies that were in range of axis attacks. They only difference was the Japanese were stupid enough to make their cities out of wood so bombings were more devastating than they otherwise would be. Don’t simplify war, it’s awful for everyone involved and you don’t understand it simply by looking at the numbers.

True.
That's what I ultimately meant, though, my bad for not being clear enough.

american don't know difference between brainwash and education lol

>Hitler didn't start WW2

Attached: brainlet 2.png (250x202, 7K)

Gook lol sheeh sheeh

provoking Japan so much to made them into the war. like America did with every other country you went to war with since then.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McC
ollum_memo
The memo outlined the general situation of several nations in World War II and recommended an eight-part course of action for the United States to take in regard to the Japanese Empire in the South Pacific, suggesting the United States provoke Japan into committing an "overt act of war".[2] The memo illustrates several people in the Office of Naval Intelligence promoted the idea of goading Japan into war:[3] "It is not believed that in the present state of political opinion the United States government is capable of declaring war against Japan without more ado [...] If by [the elucidated eight-point plan] Japan could be led to commit an overt act of war, so much the better."

>Implying the (((US government))) didn’t goad Japan into war

that is simple explanation of japanese education

it's like you actually read my post, and at the same time you didn't

>facts
You're saying that they not surrendering on the first drop of the bomb is fact that they would not surrender in any other fashion? That's not how it works, son. How was that a fact that they would surrender on a second drop? What if they didn't? They would throw a third one?

>We'll kill all the jews because on the long run it's better for peace
This is true tho

No, that wouldn’t have been possible because then it would be an unconditional surrender, Japan would not allow allied forces in the territory if they were not forced to capitulate, no one would. The only reason we were able to do that to Germany in the first place is because of their unconditional surrender. The “reality” is that you’re letting your feelings guide you like a bitch.

>What if they didn't?
They did.

Don't forget how many civilians were killed in China lol

>context is extremely important
This is true, the technology used to kill your enemies has always been a debate. The Church banned crossbows in the Middle Ages because they were too brutal, even though more soldiers died by being starved. Chemical weapons were a huge shock and therefore banned after WW1 although artillery killed more people. Nukes are a no-no but more Tokyo civilians were burned alive than Nagasaki civilians nuked. The same things are happening nowadays with mines, cluster bombs, white phosphorus etc. Also there is only outrage when you considered the victims your equals. Nobody complained when Brits killed every Sri Lankan adult man, the problem was when they rounded up Boer women and children to die of starvation and disease. When Germans ordered the annihilation of all Herero, Europeans saw it as a normal part of the civilisatory process, when they started murdering Jews and Poles, suddenly Germans were the bad guys.

You did pardon the biggest monster in that mess, though. This is where you actually fucked up.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shirō_Ishii#War_crime_immunity

Punching in the face and killed innocent civillians and many ships first, and then get hit back, and then
uwwwaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh America is a war criminal!!! we didn't do anything bad!!!

Attached: tumblr_mlodxrIX5B1r64lnto1_r2_540.jpg (513x323, 30K)

>The “reality” is that you’re letting your feelings guide you like a bitch.

You're the one having a partial opinion.

If 1% of what has been done to Japan was done to America you would see that has 'unjust', 'immoral' etc...

>converted to Catholicism shortly before his death
wtf based

sorry it's really late

This, at least in theory. Most teachers I've met seem to learn towards the "mistake" side but none of them ever managed to convince me.

> what is the Manchurian campaign
It's sad that one of the most successful and amazing military operations in history (conquest of a region the size of Western Europe in two weeks) is completely unknown because of Western propaganda.

>Betrayal of the Cossacks
>Almost a Million dead German POWs and Civilians in camps
>Marocchinate Rapes

Never did anything wrong btw

I wouldn't if the US decided to invade Canada and Mexico, raping and genociding along the way. It would be immoral to have the world sit back and watch.

Had to get the medical information they got from the tragedy somehow.

the japacucks imitated and copied China for centuries, then they were Germany tryhards, and now they are american dogs even though they were nuked.
Bitches can't stop copying other countries and being cucks

It wasn’t propaganda, it was just the relative unimportance to the region, and the capitulation of Germany and the nuking of Japan taking a larger spotlight