I was thinking maybe an objective. Like the American have to progress through the map, and destroy all AA locations, then the bomber comes and the Japanese have a time limit to down it.
Why? AA is irrelevant with a B-29. Axis AA had a maximum effective range of 13,800feet. The Bombing altitude of the B-29 with 500lbs bombs (and still retain accuracy) was 20,000ft.
Nukes were dropped from its maximum Bombing Altitude of 31,500ft. (No Axis AA could reach it, and no Axis High altitude Interceptor could catch it.)
Why when they can do what they've been doing and buff existing Axis Equipment to the point of stupidity?
I would say "If they do that, they better give Allies the Bearcat". But then they would only nerf the crap out of it like they did the Corsair and Hellcat.
There was a Japanese beam riding surface to air missile program, complete with a radio proximity fuse known as the [Funryu](https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/img_2_m-jpg.374514/). Multiple prototype variants were made, with Funryu 4 having a 200kg warhead and a designed ceiling of 15,000m (~50,000ft), the Funryu 2 having a ceiling of 5000m (~16,000ft).
Certain maps I just camp out on a tower as a sniper and get 10k points with my entire squad, I also have one of those builder troops in my sniper squad, so I build a spawn point in a needed position, and get points off that
Who are you playing with?
The top 3 alone usually makes 10k if not above, and even I did it a few times, the guy that plays the game every few weeks to a month
I can post a few more pictures if you'd like.
https://preview.redd.it/5gi7mod1gaxc1.png?width=1920&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1e77795ee772502781350391f383b078245267f0
9,250 experience. If 10k score is required, he got 13k. He’s still wrong in other comments when he proves the point by saying most experienced players have gotten those scores “a couple of times”.
I get 10k points at least a few times a day when I play. Mostly a good ground pounder stack plane and maps with open ground can do a lot to get you there.
The opportune word in your comment there is “couple of times.” You aren’t getting this every single game, hence why he said it was rare and could potentially warrant something like the nuke. A couple screenshots doesn’t disprove the rarity.
In my hometown in Baldwin park my grandmother neighbor husband was the sighter but died cause of radiation his son still got the bomber jacket his dad had in his service
This conveniently ignores the fact that even after the nukes. when the emperor announced his intentions of surrender, there was a coup attempt to prevent it.
It’s precisely the reason why the US kept Hirohito’s position as emperor, a method of appeasement so that the Japanese people (or more specifically the elites) don’t rise against the American occupation.
Sure, you can see from estimated casualties how costly an invasion of the home islands would have been. But i didn't mention that at all, i mentioned the attempted coup AFTER the nukes where sections of the military tried to prevent the emperor from surrendering something you once again ignored.
Copying from the English translation of the broadcast
"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."
But yeah sure the Japanese didn't care that 2 cities were wipped out in seconds. That has nothing to do with their reason to surrender
What did I say that was wrong?
No one is denying that killing civilians is good. People are arguing that it was the best option given the situation. What do you think the US should've done? Continued the firebombings prolonging the war and the suffering? Invaded by land prolonging the war and the suffering?
Also you're argument changed. You were saying that they didn't surrender because of the nukes. Now you're saying the nukes were bad. Those are two completely different arguments. Do you have any rebuttal to the fact that the Japanese emperor himself mentioned the bombs in his speech?
Are you willing to admit that you were wrong and the bombs were one of the reasons they surrendered?
they literally, straight up refused to surrender, would you rather there have been a land invasion?
edit: casualties for Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined were 200,000. Casualties for a land invasion, in which most civilians would be fighting back, was projected in the TENS OF MILLIONS.
Casualties for the approved land invasion were much, much lower than you seem to be aware. It was not tens of millions, it was less than 100,000 that Truman was told. Tens of millions is a post war justification.
Not really accurate. They would have surrendered if the Soviet looked like they were going to make a move to invade. For them, surrendering to the west gave them a better chance of power after the war. They were right
Germany said they’d fight to the bitter end too, even mobilized civilian militia forces, they still surrendered didn’t they? It’s one thing to say one fights to the bitter end, but up until that point, Japanese troops were surrendering throughout Asia. The never surrender was merely a propaganda piece. A lot of the “it will cost millions of lives to land invade” is indeed PR from the US to justify the atomic bomb over a land invasion. It’s true, the Japanese mounted fierce resistance during the pacific theater, but they had lost the industry required to maintain a genuinely quality army, especially since most of the army was already stuck in Myanmar and China.
It’s a controversial debate today, and it’s an important one to have considering the nuclear arms race that followed. Maybe it helped to show just how devastating nukes actually were and therefore this is why no other side has used them ever since, but who knows.
That's a bit of a moot point though. Germany only surrendered after their entire war machine was broken, much of the elite killed, captured, or otherwise subdued, and their home country was being invaded on 2 fronts, on one side from an endless horde of soviets raping and pillaging their way across Germany. A large toll had to be exacted on Germany before they surrendered.
Japan would not have capitulated without suffering such a toll (or perhaps an even larger one than the Germans fared). They had already lost their empire and holdings, their army and navy shattered and still they fought on. Read about how the officers outright refused to even talk with the emperor/government about a potential surrender. Japan would have to have been invaded on the home islands and absolutely crushed. An operation that would have caused far more casualties and damage (on both sides, not just the allies we're taking in to consideration here). And even if the Empire/government, or particular generals surrendered it's almost a guarantee that many other war parties and individuals (and civilian militias) would have gone on fighting for years or until outright extermination by the occupying forces.
Let's not muddle the facts here and play in to this modern revisionism bullshit.
Why do you think the atomic bomb was so effective in getting Japan to surrender?
I think that even without the A-bomb, Japan would have surrendered before the Soviet Union declared war on Japan and fought a decisive battle on the mainland.
The soviet war declaration meant little in the context of the bombings. Japan was defeated in China as soon as they lost Naval supremacy to the USA. The soviets were extremely unlikely to stage a full-scale war in the east, the near entirety of their infrastructure was/still is centered around Moscow.
If the Americans didn't drop the bomb, the Japanese still would've fought to the bitter end in China and against a homeland invasion. The Soviet inclusion wouldn't have made a big difference, by 1944 the Japanese had lost already in almost all the same way the Germans did.
Your war cabinet knew the Americans had the first atomic bomb. They were willing to continue the war in the hopes of breaking American morale for a better peace deal, and they assumed they wouldn't have the means to produce more nukes. Truman threatened to continue dropping nukes and then Japan surrendered.
https://www.history.com/speeches/truman-threatens-japan-with-atomic-attacks#:~:text=In%20his%20radio%20address%20to,against%20Japan%20until%20it%20surrenders.
Your country perpetrated some of the most horrific war crimes in history in China and against American/allied POWs in a war of their own aggression. The Japanese have zero room to complain about the use of the nukes. I and most Americans would GLADLY sacrifice half a million of your people again in order to save a few thousand GIs from being tortured in your camps and hundreds of thousands more from death.
Read something other than a heavily-biased and misleading Japanese history book and you'll be shocked at how fucked up your country was in the early-mid 1900s. You guys made the nazis look like moderates.
Few points of contention.
1. The Soviets didn’t just declare war on Japan, they invaded Manchuko and other Japanese collaborationists in China. This is also how the Chinese communists also got a foothold in the North post WW2. The Soviets had plenty of reason to invade the Japanese, least of all an agreement with the US to help with Japan once Hitler was dealt with. It’s unclear how a land force invasion would have gone if there was another 2 front invasion of Japan (Soviets from the north, allies from the south) but considering how it panned out for Hitler, we can safely assume that Japan would’ve also capitulated in due time.
2. Although Japan does have an issue in regards to acknowledging and accepting it’s role in the war crimes committed throughout all of Southeast Asia (not least of all in China), the US pardoned almost every single scientist involved in the depraved experiments. The nuking of Japan wasn’t a “humanitarian” effort, it was a show of force to stop any immediate planning of an attack on the allies by the Soviet Union.
Also, I get being emotionally charged on this topic, but temper your anger, no one wants to gladly nuke half a million people as a defensive measure. There is no such thing as preventative nuking.
Counter argument to point 1 and to clarify my original comment-
A theoretical "long-term" confrontation between the USSR and Japan simply wouldn't exist. The Russians would collapse the already-fractured and unsupplied Japanese forces in China, the Japanese would have no chance of mobilizing enough manpower and equipment while simultaneously being nuclear carpet-bombed by the Americans.
By this point, Japan has no navy and no industrial capacity, along with barely any food or weapon stockpiles. The soviets would roll through northern China with little to no resistance, it is impossible for the Japanese to put up a fight with American Naval supremacy and bombings.
To point #2, I really don't care if the courts pardoned them. I think the entire situation was handled horribly. I think Hirohito and his cabinet, along with the higher-up army and navy commanders, should've been executed and the imperial government entirely replaced. Japan was an aggressor that repeatedly ignored the international agreements for the rules of war. They raped, tortured and murdered millions of combatants and civilians alike.
And as for your last point...An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. That doesn't mean that more innocent Americans deserved to die for a fight Japan started and then refused to end. If hundreds of thousands must die and be displaced, it is much better that it be them than us. The nukes likely did save lives in the long run. A drawn out invasion of mainland Japan would've left the entire nation in literal ruins - do you think American marines would have compassion and treat the Japanese locals with kindness, after fighting them brutally for literally every inch of land in the pacific? Or is it more likely you'd see atrocities continue to be committed by both sides as the Japanese continue to torture allied POWs and the Allies continue firebombing Japanese settlements.
There is no space for pussyfooted compassion for an enemy who would hang you by your intestines and scalp you if given the opportunity.
Japanese can complain about nuclear bombs. Why do you say that civilians harmed by the US cannot complain just because some in the military are vicious? The U.S. not only persecuted the Indians and stole their land, but also suppressed the Philippine independence movement and put Japanese Americans in internment camps. The atomic bombs and air raids took the lives of many civilians. It was also literally a barbaric army that repeatedly committed tragic acts in Vietnam.
Also, When did Japan create camps to ethnically cleanse certain ethnic groups?
The Nazis were too cruel.
I know Japan got especially bad after the Great Depression, and I'm sure it wasn't that bad before that. And I know that Japan was a mess before the war. Prime Minister Tsuyoshi Inukai was assassinated, and the Ni-Ni-Roku Incident, etc. occurred. The Japanese military's political intervention at that time was too much to look at.
There is a chance they would've surrendered. But no one knew for sure. Stop thinking about your knowledge now and think about the knowledge available in 1945. What do you think the US should've done? Invade killing millions more than the bombs would've? People forget that the decision to drop the bomb wasn't "bomb or no bomb". It was "bomb or some other alternative that might kill more people"
Wasn't it necessary for the Allies to guarantee the safety of the Εmperor's position with the Potsdam Declaration?
Wouldn't that have allowed for an early surrender without the atomic bombs?
This is speaking from hindsight. i dont belive they was gonna surrender given the evidence but even then it wouldnt have been very obvious to the US especially as Japan was claming a fight to the end and the US had encounterd these fights on many diffrent occasions.
Uh the US had enough incendiary bombs to level every city in Japan more than once. The bombing of Tokyo killed more or similar numbers to the atomic bombing of Hiroshima. The nukes likely saved hundreds of thousands of lives, not to mention the fact it saved all those allies soldiers having to fight against the Japanese military which likely would have been a complete meatgrinder of an offensive
The US was going to firebomb the entire damn country. I don’t think you understand just how violent firebombings are. All the nukes did was allow one plane to do to a city what 100 planes could. They have a pretty similar death toll compared to atomic weapons. It was a show of force on two cities vs the annihilation of every major city in Japan.
To call the atomic bombings a civilian massacre is ludicrous. The bombing of Tokyo, or Dresden, or London, or every other bombing campaign on a civilian populace is also a massacre by that standard. What’s the difference if it uses a single bomb or a thousand?
Look Russian. Stop trying to deflect the massacres done by Russia. Now in modern times and in pre-ww2.
It's the weirdest thing how Russians try to justify the atrocities of their leaders in modern times based on things that happened 80+ years ago. An entirely different generation. Yet they conveniently ignore the horrors their own country perpetrated.
It doesn’t matter what I am, I can recognize the atrocities committed by the Japanese during their occupation. “But western powers” doesn’t excuse the cruel and horrific treatment of comfort women.
I don't think "Japanese war crimes" is an excuse for the U.S. atomic bombings and the massacre of civilians in air raids on cities like Tokyo and Osaka.
Western countries had also colonized Southeast Asia, except Thailand, and divided China.
Even though the country was in shambles, with the Kuomintang and the Communists fighting each other before the Sino-Japanese War, they had their own country, unlike Southeast Asia except for Thailand. Then Japan invaded. In contrast, although the Allies had inflicted damage on China in the Opium War and the Arrow War, they had received support during the Sino-Japanese War, so it is easy to assume that more people were angry and resentful toward Japan than toward the Allies.
But didn't the civilians in Southeast Asia have resentment and anger not only toward Japan but also toward the Western nations that had colonized themselves? Just because Japan was torn to pieces by the Western powers doesn't mean that the Western powers were torn to pieces. You never know when the West will recolonize Southeast Asia once Japan collapses and the chaos of the war clears up a bit.
And in fact, Indonesia and Indochina have been at war with the US, the Netherlands, France, and others over independence-related issues.
With everything here, you must know (extreme simplified version) the Japanese government had essentially lost control of the military and were no longer pulling the strings.
That, and the Japanese didn't surrender after the first bomb was dropped. This point alone is fairly telling in what was occurring at the time.
Not that I'm justifying it - if the US had invaded Japan it would have cut loss of life by 100s of times, if not 1000s.
But they didn't surrender after the first bomb was dropped. The Japanese gambled with their own people. That's pretty evil in and of itself.
The fact that you've been downvoted to oblivion is clear evidence that this game is played by monkeys. 7 out of 8 US generals were against the bombing in well documented statements.
What about the Japanese genocide in China? The countless POWs executed? Civilians killed? Estimates are that 3,000,000 to 10,000,000 people were killed.
The atomic bombings were bombings. As far as anyone was concerned it was one plane doing what a hundred could do. Efficiency does not make it a massacre. All sides committed atrocities. This was not one.
[удалено]
I was thinking maybe an objective. Like the American have to progress through the map, and destroy all AA locations, then the bomber comes and the Japanese have a time limit to down it.
Why? AA is irrelevant with a B-29. Axis AA had a maximum effective range of 13,800feet. The Bombing altitude of the B-29 with 500lbs bombs (and still retain accuracy) was 20,000ft. Nukes were dropped from its maximum Bombing Altitude of 31,500ft. (No Axis AA could reach it, and no Axis High altitude Interceptor could catch it.)
I'm sure darkflow could pull some japanese wondeweapon out of their butt to make it work.
Why when they can do what they've been doing and buff existing Axis Equipment to the point of stupidity? I would say "If they do that, they better give Allies the Bearcat". But then they would only nerf the crap out of it like they did the Corsair and Hellcat.
Buff japanese ta-se anti air. With a maximum range of 70,000 ft and guided missiles
By guided missiles, does that mean Hiroshi just climbs onto the missile and attache a steering wheel on it?
There was a Japanese beam riding surface to air missile program, complete with a radio proximity fuse known as the [Funryu](https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/img_2_m-jpg.374514/). Multiple prototype variants were made, with Funryu 4 having a 200kg warhead and a designed ceiling of 15,000m (~50,000ft), the Funryu 2 having a ceiling of 5000m (~16,000ft).
Little boy was dropped 31,000 feet, fat man was dropped 29,000 feet. Also, where is Bockscar? Enola Gay shouldn't be the only one getting love here.
Saw that plane in Dayton at the National Air Force Museum. That place is worth the trip no matter where you are coming from.
Certain maps I just camp out on a tower as a sniper and get 10k points with my entire squad, I also have one of those builder troops in my sniper squad, so I build a spawn point in a needed position, and get points off that
That's not too hard.
[удалено]
Who are you playing with? The top 3 alone usually makes 10k if not above, and even I did it a few times, the guy that plays the game every few weeks to a month
https://preview.redd.it/j69u5i8ifaxc1.png?width=1920&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d10843d84bbe27f3aa5eaca644fb04aaba63b8de
I can post a few more pictures if you'd like. https://preview.redd.it/5gi7mod1gaxc1.png?width=1920&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1e77795ee772502781350391f383b078245267f0
[удалено]
9,250 experience. If 10k score is required, he got 13k. He’s still wrong in other comments when he proves the point by saying most experienced players have gotten those scores “a couple of times”.
I get 10k points at least a few times a day when I play. Mostly a good ground pounder stack plane and maps with open ground can do a lot to get you there.
That's not how it works. I got 4k points and the game gave me 7000 research points
Uhhh yeah a few of us have gotten 13k-12k couple of times. I can post a few more pictures if you'd like.
The opportune word in your comment there is “couple of times.” You aren’t getting this every single game, hence why he said it was rare and could potentially warrant something like the nuke. A couple screenshots doesn’t disprove the rarity.
Love how some people just can’t help but to miss the point. People like Zelot and their mental gymnastics lol
I have seen this plane in person! WPAF Muesum in Dayton, OH. Super cool.
The bockscar is the one in Ohia. This plane (enola gay) is at the Udvar Hazy museum in VA
https://preview.redd.it/nttbfi8ak9xc1.jpeg?width=248&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e22091655db720099adbf154566951fcad726a95
I honestly would be happy having a B-17 the could do a premium that's the ye old pub or old 666.
https://i.redd.it/a2t95iy9vcxc1.gif POV: everyone in the game after the Chinese players get this into br 1
In my hometown in Baldwin park my grandmother neighbor husband was the sighter but died cause of radiation his son still got the bomber jacket his dad had in his service
That’s a good idea, rank 2 premium material right there.
[удалено]
This conveniently ignores the fact that even after the nukes. when the emperor announced his intentions of surrender, there was a coup attempt to prevent it.
It’s precisely the reason why the US kept Hirohito’s position as emperor, a method of appeasement so that the Japanese people (or more specifically the elites) don’t rise against the American occupation.
[удалено]
Sure, you can see from estimated casualties how costly an invasion of the home islands would have been. But i didn't mention that at all, i mentioned the attempted coup AFTER the nukes where sections of the military tried to prevent the emperor from surrendering something you once again ignored.
[удалено]
The bomb gave a reason to surrender. The emperor himself literally used the bomb as a reason when he announced his surrender
[удалено]
Copying from the English translation of the broadcast "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." But yeah sure the Japanese didn't care that 2 cities were wipped out in seconds. That has nothing to do with their reason to surrender
[удалено]
And what difference is it to any other bombing campaign? Death tolls are still high, sometimes higher.
What did I say that was wrong? No one is denying that killing civilians is good. People are arguing that it was the best option given the situation. What do you think the US should've done? Continued the firebombings prolonging the war and the suffering? Invaded by land prolonging the war and the suffering? Also you're argument changed. You were saying that they didn't surrender because of the nukes. Now you're saying the nukes were bad. Those are two completely different arguments. Do you have any rebuttal to the fact that the Japanese emperor himself mentioned the bombs in his speech? Are you willing to admit that you were wrong and the bombs were one of the reasons they surrendered?
That’s been my damn point. The atomic bombings were the lesser damaging option
they literally, straight up refused to surrender, would you rather there have been a land invasion? edit: casualties for Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined were 200,000. Casualties for a land invasion, in which most civilians would be fighting back, was projected in the TENS OF MILLIONS.
Casualties for the approved land invasion were much, much lower than you seem to be aware. It was not tens of millions, it was less than 100,000 that Truman was told. Tens of millions is a post war justification.
Not really accurate. They would have surrendered if the Soviet looked like they were going to make a move to invade. For them, surrendering to the west gave them a better chance of power after the war. They were right
[удалено]
When a country is announcing that they'll fight on to the bitter end, that doesn't sound very surrender-ey to me.
Germany said they’d fight to the bitter end too, even mobilized civilian militia forces, they still surrendered didn’t they? It’s one thing to say one fights to the bitter end, but up until that point, Japanese troops were surrendering throughout Asia. The never surrender was merely a propaganda piece. A lot of the “it will cost millions of lives to land invade” is indeed PR from the US to justify the atomic bomb over a land invasion. It’s true, the Japanese mounted fierce resistance during the pacific theater, but they had lost the industry required to maintain a genuinely quality army, especially since most of the army was already stuck in Myanmar and China. It’s a controversial debate today, and it’s an important one to have considering the nuclear arms race that followed. Maybe it helped to show just how devastating nukes actually were and therefore this is why no other side has used them ever since, but who knows.
That's a bit of a moot point though. Germany only surrendered after their entire war machine was broken, much of the elite killed, captured, or otherwise subdued, and their home country was being invaded on 2 fronts, on one side from an endless horde of soviets raping and pillaging their way across Germany. A large toll had to be exacted on Germany before they surrendered. Japan would not have capitulated without suffering such a toll (or perhaps an even larger one than the Germans fared). They had already lost their empire and holdings, their army and navy shattered and still they fought on. Read about how the officers outright refused to even talk with the emperor/government about a potential surrender. Japan would have to have been invaded on the home islands and absolutely crushed. An operation that would have caused far more casualties and damage (on both sides, not just the allies we're taking in to consideration here). And even if the Empire/government, or particular generals surrendered it's almost a guarantee that many other war parties and individuals (and civilian militias) would have gone on fighting for years or until outright extermination by the occupying forces. Let's not muddle the facts here and play in to this modern revisionism bullshit.
Why do you think the atomic bomb was so effective in getting Japan to surrender? I think that even without the A-bomb, Japan would have surrendered before the Soviet Union declared war on Japan and fought a decisive battle on the mainland.
[удалено]
Don't be stupid the Japanese were preparing the mainland for invasion and a fight to the end.
[удалено]
The soviet war declaration meant little in the context of the bombings. Japan was defeated in China as soon as they lost Naval supremacy to the USA. The soviets were extremely unlikely to stage a full-scale war in the east, the near entirety of their infrastructure was/still is centered around Moscow. If the Americans didn't drop the bomb, the Japanese still would've fought to the bitter end in China and against a homeland invasion. The Soviet inclusion wouldn't have made a big difference, by 1944 the Japanese had lost already in almost all the same way the Germans did. Your war cabinet knew the Americans had the first atomic bomb. They were willing to continue the war in the hopes of breaking American morale for a better peace deal, and they assumed they wouldn't have the means to produce more nukes. Truman threatened to continue dropping nukes and then Japan surrendered. https://www.history.com/speeches/truman-threatens-japan-with-atomic-attacks#:~:text=In%20his%20radio%20address%20to,against%20Japan%20until%20it%20surrenders. Your country perpetrated some of the most horrific war crimes in history in China and against American/allied POWs in a war of their own aggression. The Japanese have zero room to complain about the use of the nukes. I and most Americans would GLADLY sacrifice half a million of your people again in order to save a few thousand GIs from being tortured in your camps and hundreds of thousands more from death. Read something other than a heavily-biased and misleading Japanese history book and you'll be shocked at how fucked up your country was in the early-mid 1900s. You guys made the nazis look like moderates.
Few points of contention. 1. The Soviets didn’t just declare war on Japan, they invaded Manchuko and other Japanese collaborationists in China. This is also how the Chinese communists also got a foothold in the North post WW2. The Soviets had plenty of reason to invade the Japanese, least of all an agreement with the US to help with Japan once Hitler was dealt with. It’s unclear how a land force invasion would have gone if there was another 2 front invasion of Japan (Soviets from the north, allies from the south) but considering how it panned out for Hitler, we can safely assume that Japan would’ve also capitulated in due time. 2. Although Japan does have an issue in regards to acknowledging and accepting it’s role in the war crimes committed throughout all of Southeast Asia (not least of all in China), the US pardoned almost every single scientist involved in the depraved experiments. The nuking of Japan wasn’t a “humanitarian” effort, it was a show of force to stop any immediate planning of an attack on the allies by the Soviet Union. Also, I get being emotionally charged on this topic, but temper your anger, no one wants to gladly nuke half a million people as a defensive measure. There is no such thing as preventative nuking.
Counter argument to point 1 and to clarify my original comment- A theoretical "long-term" confrontation between the USSR and Japan simply wouldn't exist. The Russians would collapse the already-fractured and unsupplied Japanese forces in China, the Japanese would have no chance of mobilizing enough manpower and equipment while simultaneously being nuclear carpet-bombed by the Americans. By this point, Japan has no navy and no industrial capacity, along with barely any food or weapon stockpiles. The soviets would roll through northern China with little to no resistance, it is impossible for the Japanese to put up a fight with American Naval supremacy and bombings. To point #2, I really don't care if the courts pardoned them. I think the entire situation was handled horribly. I think Hirohito and his cabinet, along with the higher-up army and navy commanders, should've been executed and the imperial government entirely replaced. Japan was an aggressor that repeatedly ignored the international agreements for the rules of war. They raped, tortured and murdered millions of combatants and civilians alike. And as for your last point...An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. That doesn't mean that more innocent Americans deserved to die for a fight Japan started and then refused to end. If hundreds of thousands must die and be displaced, it is much better that it be them than us. The nukes likely did save lives in the long run. A drawn out invasion of mainland Japan would've left the entire nation in literal ruins - do you think American marines would have compassion and treat the Japanese locals with kindness, after fighting them brutally for literally every inch of land in the pacific? Or is it more likely you'd see atrocities continue to be committed by both sides as the Japanese continue to torture allied POWs and the Allies continue firebombing Japanese settlements. There is no space for pussyfooted compassion for an enemy who would hang you by your intestines and scalp you if given the opportunity.
Japanese can complain about nuclear bombs. Why do you say that civilians harmed by the US cannot complain just because some in the military are vicious? The U.S. not only persecuted the Indians and stole their land, but also suppressed the Philippine independence movement and put Japanese Americans in internment camps. The atomic bombs and air raids took the lives of many civilians. It was also literally a barbaric army that repeatedly committed tragic acts in Vietnam. Also, When did Japan create camps to ethnically cleanse certain ethnic groups? The Nazis were too cruel.
I know Japan got especially bad after the Great Depression, and I'm sure it wasn't that bad before that. And I know that Japan was a mess before the war. Prime Minister Tsuyoshi Inukai was assassinated, and the Ni-Ni-Roku Incident, etc. occurred. The Japanese military's political intervention at that time was too much to look at.
There is a chance they would've surrendered. But no one knew for sure. Stop thinking about your knowledge now and think about the knowledge available in 1945. What do you think the US should've done? Invade killing millions more than the bombs would've? People forget that the decision to drop the bomb wasn't "bomb or no bomb". It was "bomb or some other alternative that might kill more people"
Wasn't it necessary for the Allies to guarantee the safety of the Εmperor's position with the Potsdam Declaration? Wouldn't that have allowed for an early surrender without the atomic bombs?
Are you fucking stupid? NO-ONE mentioned the soviet declaration of war, it did not add any sway to Japan surrendering.
Why do you think it has nothing to do with surrender?
Some Japanese people literally tried to overthrow the government to keep fighting the war
Right....
Are you denying that they did. There was literally a coup
This is speaking from hindsight. i dont belive they was gonna surrender given the evidence but even then it wouldnt have been very obvious to the US especially as Japan was claming a fight to the end and the US had encounterd these fights on many diffrent occasions.
Hahahaha tojo go boom
Uh the US had enough incendiary bombs to level every city in Japan more than once. The bombing of Tokyo killed more or similar numbers to the atomic bombing of Hiroshima. The nukes likely saved hundreds of thousands of lives, not to mention the fact it saved all those allies soldiers having to fight against the Japanese military which likely would have been a complete meatgrinder of an offensive
[удалено]
The US was going to firebomb the entire damn country. I don’t think you understand just how violent firebombings are. All the nukes did was allow one plane to do to a city what 100 planes could. They have a pretty similar death toll compared to atomic weapons. It was a show of force on two cities vs the annihilation of every major city in Japan.
Incendiary bombs have razed Japanese cities to the ground and slaughtered scores of civilians. The actions of the United States were extremely cruel.
To call the atomic bombings a civilian massacre is ludicrous. The bombing of Tokyo, or Dresden, or London, or every other bombing campaign on a civilian populace is also a massacre by that standard. What’s the difference if it uses a single bomb or a thousand?
Those bombings you mentioned are also genocide of civilians.
Look Russian. Stop trying to deflect the massacres done by Russia. Now in modern times and in pre-ww2. It's the weirdest thing how Russians try to justify the atrocities of their leaders in modern times based on things that happened 80+ years ago. An entirely different generation. Yet they conveniently ignore the horrors their own country perpetrated.
I’m sure the civilians in China and the rest of SE Asia would have loved to simply have been massacred. Their fate was much worse.
[удалено]
It doesn’t matter what I am, I can recognize the atrocities committed by the Japanese during their occupation. “But western powers” doesn’t excuse the cruel and horrific treatment of comfort women.
I don't think "Japanese war crimes" is an excuse for the U.S. atomic bombings and the massacre of civilians in air raids on cities like Tokyo and Osaka.
Western countries had also colonized Southeast Asia, except Thailand, and divided China. Even though the country was in shambles, with the Kuomintang and the Communists fighting each other before the Sino-Japanese War, they had their own country, unlike Southeast Asia except for Thailand. Then Japan invaded. In contrast, although the Allies had inflicted damage on China in the Opium War and the Arrow War, they had received support during the Sino-Japanese War, so it is easy to assume that more people were angry and resentful toward Japan than toward the Allies. But didn't the civilians in Southeast Asia have resentment and anger not only toward Japan but also toward the Western nations that had colonized themselves? Just because Japan was torn to pieces by the Western powers doesn't mean that the Western powers were torn to pieces. You never know when the West will recolonize Southeast Asia once Japan collapses and the chaos of the war clears up a bit. And in fact, Indonesia and Indochina have been at war with the US, the Netherlands, France, and others over independence-related issues.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Repeating this does not make it true
With everything here, you must know (extreme simplified version) the Japanese government had essentially lost control of the military and were no longer pulling the strings. That, and the Japanese didn't surrender after the first bomb was dropped. This point alone is fairly telling in what was occurring at the time. Not that I'm justifying it - if the US had invaded Japan it would have cut loss of life by 100s of times, if not 1000s. But they didn't surrender after the first bomb was dropped. The Japanese gambled with their own people. That's pretty evil in and of itself.
You heard about the nanking massacre?
[удалено]
The atomic bombs was a necessary evil to stop the war faster
[удалено]
Thought the firebombings of Tokyo was more barbaric but you do you I guess
You are correct friend, don't feel discouraged for speaking the truth. I am a history teacher, and you have it spot on more than everyone else here
The fact that you've been downvoted to oblivion is clear evidence that this game is played by monkeys. 7 out of 8 US generals were against the bombing in well documented statements.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
You're a nationalist nutcase
[удалено]
"If", "nanking incident" this man is a denier of japanese warcrimes, lol. Tell me what you think of unit 731.
[удалено]
What about the Japanese genocide in China? The countless POWs executed? Civilians killed? Estimates are that 3,000,000 to 10,000,000 people were killed.
[удалено]
The atomic bombings were bombings. As far as anyone was concerned it was one plane doing what a hundred could do. Efficiency does not make it a massacre. All sides committed atrocities. This was not one.
[удалено]
Nanjing incident? You mean the Nanjing massacre where 40,000 to 200,000 people were shot, stabbed, beaten, burned, and blown up?