re: The Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Animated

quote:

---

Your understanding of history is non-existent.

---

More assumptions. Please tell me how so.

quote:

---

As for the claim that Russia won WW2 is laughable, the ONLY reason they weren’t overrun by the Summer of 41’ was poor logistics by the Germans.

---

This. Wish they would've let Patton head north.

quote:

---

If this is the case then all war is a crime.

---

I don’t think this follows from the idea that people have human rights that ought to be respected until they seek to deprive others of human rights. If you are engaging in a battle in the defense of your home against active aggressors, I don’t think this is very morally dubious. I think intentionally killing civilians is not the same thing.

quote:

---

A war crime.

---

Your post is a prime example of the effectiveness of leftist propaganda on the feeble minded.

quote:

---

but the US government estimated that an invasion of mainland Japan would cost 1 MILLION of just Allied Forces

---

I'd like to see the sourcing on this. Japan was done. They had no fleet. They could have been blockaded and starved out. Lots of other options.

I understand the bombing was effective. But I don't think we would have done it again in retrospect. There is a reason it has never been done again. It's horrific and no one should have that type of power..

quote:

---

And if civilian deaths as the result of a military attack are in itself a war crime, every bomb ever dropped on a factory or munitions plant where private citizens are known to be present would be considered a war crime as well, no?

---

Dresden is calling, as are Tokyo, London and others. Dresden and Tokyo each arguably caused more casualties than either Hiroshima or Nagasaki on their own. For example, with the allies bombing the shite out of Romania, with local workers acting as indentured servants for the Nazis to get them oil.

Hey, is the Holodomor a war crime, or any sort of crime? People killing their own children to engage in cannibalism or out of "humanity" to spare them a long slow death? I'd rather be eliminated by artillery.

Do we call the battle of Verdun or the Somme a war crime? What did the civilians in those areas have to do with anything? Smart people in this thread need to stop being selective in the outrage and recognize horrible acts of all sorts of humanity for what they are. War is as old as time, where civilians paid the price. The Mongols, the Ottomans, American Indians, the Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, the Sumerians, all killed many, many non combatants, usually in more gruesome ways than disappearing in an instant, or dying within a few hours or days from a sickness you didn't understand.

WRT to fallout, Basura, we also paid out a ton of money to people in New Mexico that danced in the "snow" after the Trinity test that developed ridiculous amounts of cancers, so it's not like we didn't do it to ourselves, too. Watch some of the tests (especially naval) that had Americans present, woof.

quote:

---

France won WWI

---

If the French were on their own, the Germans would have captured Paris in September 1914. The British saved their arse.

In the Spring of 1917, following the disastrous Nevell Offensive, the French Army went into full blown mutiny. Had the British mot saved their arse yet again, France would have had to sue for peace.

Yes, France was on the winning side in WWI, but to say they won the war is laughable.

quote:

---

Russia won WWII

---

If not for Lind Lease, the Red Army would have collapsed no later than 1943. The Russians were very good at producing tanks, howitzers, and aircraft. And they had an almost bottomless supply of men. What they lacked was the ability to produce the myriad of things necessary to actually keep those tanks, planes, and men in the field fighting as a cohesive force. I am talking about things like trucks, tires, high-octane fuel, radios, boots, medical supplies, and most importantly enough food to feed the Red Army. Yes, the Soviets played a pivotal role in the Allied victory, the fact the overwhelming majority of the land casualties the Germans suffered in the war came on the Eastern Front is testament to this fact. But make no mistake, if not for massive aid from the West, not to mention keeping over three German army groups and the majority of the Luftwaffe’s fighter force tied up on the Western Front, the Soviet Union would have collapsed on its own, and that’s even after Stalingrad.

Yes because starving millions of people is much more kinder and gentler than killing a couple hundred thousand with two atomic weapons. Dead is dead. I'd rather get nuked then starve to death..much quicker.

That's why I laughed when the US stopped using napalm after the first Gulf war because it was considered barbaric. So basically instead of burning them out of their bunkers and trench lines they just covered them up with sand from bulldozer blade equipped tanks. so yeah burning to death or suffocating.. dead is dead.

Hiroshima was a valid military target. Keep in mind the US was already preparing for Operation Downfall, the invasion of Japan. One of the main landings was to be on Kyushu. The Japanese Area Army (army group) responsible for the defense of Kyushu was headquartered in Hiroshima.

Both you and Darth are absolutely right. I've been to both, and even the Japanese acknowledge in the museums that they expected to be targets because of the military industrial complex.

We killed up to 130,000 people in Tokyo with firebombs. We killed about half that in each of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The rest of the commenters also don't seem to understand after Hiroshima we specifically asked for surrender, and if an affirmative answer wasn't received, we'd do it again. Caveat, when you wipe out a big chunk of city, it's hard to get back to the emperor the news of what we did and the scale of it, with much level of accuracy within a few days. But, we'd already burned much of Tokyo to the ground, so disaster from the sky was well demonstrated already. The writing was on the wall.