Im sorry for saying that attack on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was justified

[Dawido]

Months ago, i made a thread where i sayed that Oppenheimer and USA army overall did what they had to to stop Japenese genocide on Asian nations, but now i realised that you never cant justify Innocent civilians getting hurted, no matter the side you are on.
Oppenheimer himself feeled awful after realising that he created thing that can destroy whole city in few minutes, but i guess this was only way, because imagine that germans would make they own nuclear bomb.
But overall, sorry for what i said, i realised that i didnt make me better from tankies that are trying to justify red army's war crimes.
Civilians never should be victims

[Sarge the summer dreadin' dog]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Kwasmaster:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Sarge, Mariah Carey's Xmas Pup:

They aren't the only ones but they are getting away with it right now. I'm Catholic and they killed the only real Catholic president we ever had.





And that is total ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ we support any wars outside of America. Congress is full of old ass boomers who have this thought that if we just pack up and leave Europe, China, Russia and all of the Middle East will cause havoc in all over Europe its nonsense. Its absolute ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥.
Vietnam was a huge mistake and loss of life, Iraq was absolutely nonsense, Afghanistan too.
All we do is cause strife and chaos where ever we go. I'm so sick of it. We have people, VETS OF ALL PEOPLE, starving and dying in the streets while we give money to countries to fight wars or bomb them.

Only reason I liked trump so much is he was so critical of NATO.

I am European and I have U.S military in my country. They came during WW2 and never left, its just that now we have to call them " allies / friends ".
When I see them on our public streets driving in their tanks and trucks (probably to some exercise), they sit in their vehicles with helmets, assault rifles and body armour, they also do not have any numbers tags and the light on their vehicles is usually questionable, making it hard to see them at night, which can end up fatal on a high speed motorway. lol.

If it was me and most other citizens in my country, we would have them leave entirely by tomorrow. Unfortunately our government is a NATO member and claims that we have to be very scared of Russia and need our NATO friends in our country.... meh you know how the story goes anyway.

Point is, the U.S as well as the U.K always act as if they are everyones friends and liberators, yet they act extremely invasive.

Its like this big friend who is involved with shady business. He helps you out at first so you won't get bullied anymore, but then he will always involve you in shady business and you have to do things you don't really want to do.

Not gonna lie, the U.S did help to build up my country after the war through the " marshall plan " and the soldiers did treat my people very very well, respectful and humane, my grandfathers can both confirm this and have seen it with their own eyes numerous times, one during his time as a POW in Texas and another right during the war, after a G.I cleared his village from Hitler Youth and then helped him and his family out of the basement, giving them food and so on.

But the modern U.S is excessive and too invasive in local politics, see what happened after they funded Selensky's party.

And after the Marshall plan we probably should have just pack up and left you to your own devices. The modern USA military is a far cry from the WW2 all the old generals are dead and gone and the new ones are pretty incompetent if they lose to rice farmers in Vietnam. That’s just my opinion tho.

[Morkonan]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Dewido:

..
Civilians never should be victims

Sorry, but the rigors of war were different back then. The tools determine the process - It really is that simple.

Civilian population centers were deemed legitimate targets to reduce the enemy's will and ability to fight. They didn't have smart bombs.

"Was" it justified? It's war. It was justified at that time. Japan would not accept surrender, would not then accept unconditional surrender, then only finally accepted unconditional surrender after the second bomb was dropped.

Was it terrible? Yes. So, maybe we should all decide to not do this whole "war" thing? That'd be a good idea, just so some kids don't show up eighty years later to tell us how terrible we were for using the only tools we had to do the only thing we could do.

[Stranger]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Xautos:

The Americans were going to use those bombs no matter what. Since there was no warcrimes tribunals and no officially recognised treaty where the USA recognised such a thing, it wasn't considered a war crime, not like it is today.

No matter how it was considered though, Japan was never going to see reason, it was never going to back down, because they were achieving a great deal of success in their wars, even against the USA at Pearl Harbour, that proved to be a significant embarrassment for the US. So strong was Japanese commitment to the war their fighter pilots and submarine pilots kamikazed into targets when no other option existed. That's a level of nationalism and patriotism that was stronger than what the Americans had at the time and it's for that same reason the Japanese would never listen to reason in diplomacy.

It was either drag the war out with Japan or end it there and then. The US took it on themselves to nuke Japan twice or force the Japanese to wake up and end the conflict immediately from the catastrophic loss of life. on their mainland or risk complete defeat and the loss of everything they built up over thousands of years.

The Prime Minister had been trying to surrender for months.

It's the equivalent of going into Luxeomberg in June 1945, rounding everyone up, and then running them down with a tank.

[Morkonan]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Stranger:

The Prime Minister had been trying to surrender for months.

On their terms... They wanted to dictate the terms of surrender and that was not going to be allowed to be an option. Remember - It was a "sneak" attack on Pearl Harbor, a bad way to start off a conflict you're going to lose. Even though the diplomats didn't understand the severity of the message they were supposed to have delivered before then, there are no "do-overs." Conditional surrender was not going to be allowed when that the US had the obvious advantage.

[Stranger]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Morkonan:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Stranger:

The Prime Minister had been trying to surrender for months.

On their terms... They wanted to dictate the terms of surrender and that was not going to be allowed to be an option. Remember - It was a "sneak" attack on Pearl Harbor, a bad way to start off a conflict you're going to lose. Even though the diplomats didn't understand the severity of the message they were supposed to have delivered before then, there are no "do-overs." Conditional surrender was not going to be allowed when that the US had the obvious advantage.

The Prime Minister wanted a surrender at any terms, and the military establishment told them it was impossible and disallowed it. "You can surrender, but we won't" in effect.

They were the third PM in four years due to assassinations.

It's the equivalent of blaming the whole country for Hitler, and then using that as an excuse to justify anything done to its people.

[L1qu1dator]

I'm sorry to burst your bubble but you have no idea what you're talking about.
And you're repeating yourself to make it worse...

[Morkonan]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Stranger:

The Prime Minister wanted a surrender at any terms, and the military establishment told them it was impossible and disallowed it. "You can surrender, but we won't" in effect.

They were the third PM in four years due to assassinations.

It's the equivalent of blaming the whole country for Hitler, and then using that as an excuse to justify anything done to its people.

All I can remember atm was that they would not surrender unconditionally as that would likely force abdication for the Emperor and a severe reduction in the symbol he represented.

Do you have any sources I could read that address your assertion?

Keep in mind: The Soviets finally declaring war against Japan when they saw the likely outcome was a very large motivation for Japan to surrender to the US, too, just as Germany had tried to do before the Soviets reached Berlin. It'd be difficult to see Japan offering unconditional terms before that happened, considering the very defensible nation they controlled and the large numbers of civilian combatants being trained.

Edit:Add - I came across this in r/historian :

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2zty7o/in_one_my_my_professors_lectures_he_mentioned/?rdt=36659

Basically, there were no "official" negotiations. There was some communication, though, but it was not fruitful and not acceptable to all in either government. So, in essence, "No, there was not a formal negotiation as you suggest." At least, according to these folk/historians. (They provide some refs, but it's the first decent narrative explanation I came across... "seems legit" :))

This is not unlike the several attempts by high-ranking German officers to surrender Germany to the US. None of those could have been seen as "official" and even after conquest and an "official" surrender, many units did not believe it and continued fighting. It is VERY important that the military sees a legitimate government officially surrendering, else they are not going to be motivated to surrender, themselves.

[Stranger]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von L1qu1dator:

I'm sorry to burst your bubble but you have no idea what you're talking about.
And you're repeating yourself to make it worse...

Even the most hardcore elements of the central government were alienated by what happened in WW2.

Most of the VA simply fled the country, as any form of perceived disagreement would risk their untimely death.

The investigator who came to retreive my revolvers and AM ammunition, for example, was pushed out simply for having made eyecontact with me. By the same people who ordered him to do so.

Trying to claim the country was acting in a unified interest in that situation is absurd, and comes across as the notch meeting its join.

oh you meant op, not everyone else repeating themselves. . . .

[Tiberius]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Sarge, Mariah Carey's Xmas Pup:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Kwasmaster:

I am European and I have U.S military in my country. They came during WW2 and never left, its just that now we have to call them " allies / friends ".
When I see them on our public streets driving in their tanks and trucks (probably to some exercise), they sit in their vehicles with helmets, assault rifles and body armour, they also do not have any numbers tags and the light on their vehicles is usually questionable, making it hard to see them at night, which can end up fatal on a high speed motorway. lol.

If it was me and most other citizens in my country, we would have them leave entirely by tomorrow. Unfortunately our government is a NATO member and claims that we have to be very scared of Russia and need our NATO friends in our country.... meh you know how the story goes anyway.

Point is, the U.S as well as the U.K always act as if they are everyones friends and liberators, yet they act extremely invasive.

Its like this big friend who is involved with shady business. He helps you out at first so you won't get bullied anymore, but then he will always involve you in shady business and you have to do things you don't really want to do.

Not gonna lie, the U.S did help to build up my country after the war through the " marshall plan " and the soldiers did treat my people very very well, respectful and humane, my grandfathers can both confirm this and have seen it with their own eyes numerous times, one during his time as a POW in Texas and another right during the war, after a G.I cleared his village from Hitler Youth and then helped him and his family out of the basement, giving them food and so on.

But the modern U.S is excessive and too invasive in local politics, see what happened after they funded Selensky's party.

And after the Marshall plan we probably should have just pack up and left you to your own devices. The modern USA military is a far cry from the WW2 all the old generals are dead and gone and the new ones are pretty incompetent if they lose to rice farmers in Vietnam. That’s just my opinion tho.

Pretty much

[Stranger]

The largest issue with Vietnam is that the only way it could've worked would be if they simply genocided the north.

Every Marshall plan-associated military action has had the same problem, from the Japanese occupation to the Korean war to Iraq and Afghanistan, both times.

[Xautos]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Stranger:

The largest issue with Vietnam is that the only way it could've worked would be if they simply genocided the north.

Every Marshall plan-associated military action has had the same problem, from the Japanese occupation to the Korean war to Iraq and Afghanistan, both times.

That wouldn't of made a difference. the popularity of the war was in the crapper in the last few years. there was no way it could be prolonged and any attempt to do so would have received a largely negative response, akin to political suicide. Back then the people actually mattered with their voice and the president couldn't ignore it. Today you'd be lucky if the president even notices the protests in the streets about Israel and Palestine.

[Ganger]

Never apologise for things you said in the past. Your views might of changed since saying or doing something but you should never apologise for it.

Im tired of hearing celebrities apologise for things their said decades ago due to some political correctness of today, it annoys me no end.

Even 'Friend' creator got on her hands and knees and grovelled about not including more diverse cast. Back then the show would of failed if it had a diverse cast. Such BS if I ever hear it....

Marta Kauffman—one of the co-creators behind the mega-hit sitcom Friends—apologized in an interview about the way the show handled a transgender character, one week after she pledged a donation to make up for the series' lack of racial diversity

[Neurotic Panda]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Dewido:

Civilians never should be victims

Civilians are the victims and the saviors. Civilians just want to be left alone to live their lives in peace. most all around the world are like this.

Civilians are the victims because the 'egotistical brainwashed (generally) young men' of the world and the 'old geriatric men who want to see the world burn before they die types' in charge want to fight and pew pew pew with anyone different than them and show of their new shinnies that the peace loving civilians have paid for through taxes. Who gets caught in the cross fire? normal people just wanting to live their lives. Who ends up having to be the saviors of their nations military when they have 'played' to hard and got themselves in a corner they cant get out of. Well they force the peace loving civilians to fight to save their asses. Been going on forever. This is why it makes me laugh when military folk make fun of or look down on people who don't serve.

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Ganger:

Never apologise for things you said in the past. Your views might of changed since saying or doing something but you should never apologise for it.

This is one of the top 5 dumbest things I've ever read on this forum, and that is saying A LOT.

[Stranger]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Xautos:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Stranger:

The largest issue with Vietnam is that the only way it could've worked would be if they simply genocided the north.

Every Marshall plan-associated military action has had the same problem, from the Japanese occupation to the Korean war to Iraq and Afghanistan, both times.

That wouldn't of made a difference. the popularity of the war was in the crapper in the last few years. there was no way it could be prolonged and any attempt to do so would have received a largely negative response, akin to political suicide. Back then the people actually mattered with their voice and the president couldn't ignore it. Today you'd be lucky if the president even notices the protests in the streets about Israel and Palestine.

So it's not that the Marshall Plan was bad, just that it was never implemented properly?

[Under there]

japan was goaded into attacking pearl harbor and basically had no choice