Off Topic: The Flood
This topic has moved here: Subject: Hiroshima AND Nagasaki?
  • Subject: Hiroshima AND Nagasaki?
Subject: Hiroshima AND Nagasaki?

If that deals with the problem fine but don't say that when the US kills civilians it's part of war but when other countries hit another country and kill civilians they are killers, Be fair.

  • 01.03.2013 12:36 PM PDT

"I will show you how a true Prussian officer fights!"

"And i will show you where the iron crosses grow..."

- "Cross of Iron"


Posted by: culexus

Posted by: Hayabusawarrior
Ask the the thousands of people who would have died in the invasion (on both sides) if it was necessary.


And yet, if soldiers were killing other soldiers I would say that is better than Nuking a few hundred thousand civilians.

More lives lost? Potentially, but that would have been two opposing armies not killing thousands of civilians.

Note: Civilians are not active combatants and you shouldn't target them for the lulz.



Actually the Japanese announced that all civlians were considered kamikaze and were encouraged to kill American soldiers because they thought we would eat,-blam!- and kill them.

It is the power of propaganda.

  • 01.03.2013 12:36 PM PDT

Totes necessary.
Also, bomg?

  • 01.03.2013 12:36 PM PDT

'Κύριε Ἰησοῦ Χριστέ, Υἱὲ τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἐλέησόν με τὸν ἁμαρτωλόν.'

Posted by: Locke357
And there's that whole bit about how the US wouldn't have been invading alone, the USSR recently declared war,


So? Whoever was invading, more people still would have died.

...and many sources and historical works argue that the Soviet entry had far more to do with the Japanese decision to surrender

Real sources or libtard revisionist propoganda with no real historical basis? If you are so confident with your claim, then prove it. And Raptor can examine it since he knows more about WWII than me.

  • 01.03.2013 12:37 PM PDT

I Would Have Been Your Daddy


Posted by: I 5ee You
Totes necessary.
Also, bomg?
Ye, I thought about edeting that but it lookd cool

  • 01.03.2013 12:38 PM PDT

“If we will disbelieve everything, because we cannot certainly know all things, we shall do much what as wisely as he who would not use his legs, but sit still and perish, because he had no wings to fly.” - John Locke

"How can anyone be enlightened? Truth after all is so poorly lit." - Rush


Posted by: Captain Richards
Posted by: Locke357
And there's that whole bit about how the US wouldn't have been invading alone, the USSR recently declared war,


So? Whoever was invading, more people still would have died.

...and many sources and historical works argue that the Soviet entry had far more to do with the Japanese decision to surrender

Real sources or libtard revisionist propoganda with no real historical basis? If you are so confident with your claim, then prove it. And Raptor can examine it since he knows more about WWII than me.
look at my first post on page 1, I have a 19-page paper posted

  • 01.03.2013 12:38 PM PDT

"I will show you how a true Prussian officer fights!"

"And i will show you where the iron crosses grow..."

- "Cross of Iron"


Posted by: Locke357

Posted by: Raptorx7
as said before it was indeed a necessary evil it saved more lives then it killed.
Except that is hardly proven, and is hardly considered the consensus amongst the historical community. Many historians are of the opinion that the USSR entering into the war against Japan had far more effect, and might have on its won caused the Japanese to surrender.


Listen i honestly have nothing against you and understand where your coming from. I know that the USSR joining in may have had a huge impact but i still think the bomb was indeed necessary. In the historical community there are people who think the bomb was necessary as well. I am not some crazy American patriot who thinks it was great that all those civilians died but i understand why it was done. I don't think either of us speak for the historical community either.

  • 01.03.2013 12:38 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: Captain Richards
Posted by: Locke357
And there's that whole bit about how the US wouldn't have been invading alone, the USSR recently declared war,


So? Whoever was invading, more people still would have died.

...and many sources and historical works argue that the Soviet entry had far more to do with the Japanese decision to surrender

Real sources or libtard revisionist propoganda with no real historical basis? If you are so confident with your claim, then prove it. And Raptor can examine it since he knows more about WWII than me.

Posted by: Locke357

Posted by: Murcielago00

Posted by: Locke357
Evidence suggests that the soviet entry into the war against Japan, not the atomic bombings, caused to Japanese to surrender in the end.


Source?
Asada, Sadao. "The Shock of the Atomic Bomb and Japan's Decision to Surrender: A Reconsideration," in Hiroshima in History: The Myths of Revisionism, edited by Robert James Maddox, 24-58. Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 2007.

Bix, Herbert P. "Japan's Delayed Surrender: A Reinterpretation," in Hiroshima in History and Memory, ed. Michael J. Hogan, 80-115. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.

Frank, Richard B. Downfall: the End of the Imperial Japanese Empire. New York: Penguin, 1999.

Hasegawa, Tsuyoshi. Racing the Enemy: Stalin, Truman, and the Surrender of Japan. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2005.

  • 01.03.2013 12:39 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Mythic Member
  • gamertag: JFKES
  • user homepage:

"It's not who I am underneath, but what I do that defines me"

- Batman

Not in the slightest.

After the first they should have just said 'we can bomb you if you don't give up'. At least give them time to really know what happened and have a chance to surrender.

In any case, I don't think either bombs were morally justifiable.

  • 01.03.2013 12:39 PM PDT

Marley: next time try to be a little for inconspicuous.
John: What do you mean?
Marley: John, we grow lots of gear, right?
John: Yeah loads...
Marley: So try not to come back with a wasted girl and a packet of fertilizer!

In for a penny, in for a pound. It would have been pointless to, having dropped one nuke, either wait it out or invade because that would completely defeat the point of spending all that money on the first bomb. You either do one or the other, not both. And you know, I think some scientists were just REALLY eager to find out what happened when people got nuked and weren't happy with just one case study.

  • 01.03.2013 12:39 PM PDT

“If we will disbelieve everything, because we cannot certainly know all things, we shall do much what as wisely as he who would not use his legs, but sit still and perish, because he had no wings to fly.” - John Locke

"How can anyone be enlightened? Truth after all is so poorly lit." - Rush


Posted by: Raptorx7

Posted by: Locke357

Posted by: Raptorx7
as said before it was indeed a necessary evil it saved more lives then it killed.
Except that is hardly proven, and is hardly considered the consensus amongst the historical community. Many historians are of the opinion that the USSR entering into the war against Japan had far more effect, and might have on its won caused the Japanese to surrender.


Listen i honestly have nothing against you and understand where your coming from. I know that the USSR joining in may have had a huge impact but i still think the bomb was indeed necessary. In the historical community there are people who think the bomb was necessary as well. I am not some crazy American patriot who thinks it was great that all those civilians died but i understand why it was done. I don't think either of us speak for the historical community either.
I have nothing against you either, sorry if my writing style on this forum is rather aggressive.

Being a history major and dedicating an entire semester to the study of the subject, I have a pretty good grasp of the historical communities' ideas, as I have examined many of them. The writings of historians in the past couple decades have hardly taken as a-given the traditional justifications as postulated by the US in the early cold-war period.

[Edited on 01.03.2013 12:42 PM PST]

  • 01.03.2013 12:41 PM PDT

Im a Joker, Im a smoker, Im a midnight toker!
Are you suggesting that coconuts migrate?

It was not really necessary. But it was mainly for Political reasons. You have to take note that Germany, USSR, and Great Britain were all trying to build a mass weapon. Since the US was the first to do it they really wanted to show off power to the other countries. But after the first atomic bomb Japan did surrender on the terms that they would keep their Emperor. The Allies wanted and unconventional surrender from them. Could the Allies have negotiated with them then there would be no need for the second bomb.

  • 01.03.2013 12:41 PM PDT

*Silloin kun näyttää siltä että ei ole mitään hätää niin tulee hälytyskellojen soida
*Neuvostoliiton hajoaminen oli vain showta
*Saksa on löytänyt uuden tavan vallata Eurooppa ilman yhtäkään panssarivaunua

America, Russia and Germany were evil.

  • 01.03.2013 12:41 PM PDT

"I will show you how a true Prussian officer fights!"

"And i will show you where the iron crosses grow..."

- "Cross of Iron"


Posted by: JFKES
Not in the slightest.

After the first they should have just said 'we can bomb you if you don't give up'. At least give them time to really know what happened and have a chance to surrender.

In any case, I don't think either bombs were morally justifiable.


Thats exactly what we did...

  • 01.03.2013 12:42 PM PDT

“If we will disbelieve everything, because we cannot certainly know all things, we shall do much what as wisely as he who would not use his legs, but sit still and perish, because he had no wings to fly.” - John Locke

"How can anyone be enlightened? Truth after all is so poorly lit." - Rush


Posted by: Raptorx7

Posted by: JFKES
Not in the slightest.

After the first they should have just said 'we can bomb you if you don't give up'. At least give them time to really know what happened and have a chance to surrender.

In any case, I don't think either bombs were morally justifiable.


Thats exactly what we did...
I'm not certain but he may be referring to a waiting period in-between the two bombings.

  • 01.03.2013 12:42 PM PDT

"I will show you how a true Prussian officer fights!"

"And i will show you where the iron crosses grow..."

- "Cross of Iron"


Posted by: Locke357

Posted by: Raptorx7

Posted by: Locke357

Posted by: Raptorx7
as said before it was indeed a necessary evil it saved more lives then it killed.
Except that is hardly proven, and is hardly considered the consensus amongst the historical community. Many historians are of the opinion that the USSR entering into the war against Japan had far more effect, and might have on its won caused the Japanese to surrender.


Listen i honestly have nothing against you and understand where your coming from. I know that the USSR joining in may have had a huge impact but i still think the bomb was indeed necessary. In the historical community there are people who think the bomb was necessary as well. I am not some crazy American patriot who thinks it was great that all those civilians died but i understand why it was done. I don't think either of us speak for the historical community either.
I have nothing against you either, sorry if my writing style on this forum is rather aggressive.

Being a history major and dedicating an entire semester to the study of the subject, I have a pretty good grasp of the historical communities' ideas, as I have examined many of them. The writings of historians in the past couple decades have hardly taken as a-given the traditional justifications as postulated by the US in the early cold-war period.


i understand thus is the nature of opinions. To be honest with you i haven read much at all on the cold war but i understand how those bombings shaped the world to come and from my American history teachings in high school (yes they are horrible i know) i do have a grasp of it. i have read many historians essays on the facts you put forward as well. I am rambling now but i suppose ive put my opinion across.

  • 01.03.2013 12:46 PM PDT

Everyone in this thread is such a conspirator or a total fool. Both bombs were necessary and in fact both bombings caused less casualties than our fire bombing. We warned them before the first bombing and told them what we had. They ignored and so we nuked a territory. The Japanese still refused to surrender and we gave them warning again and then we bombed them again. We really only had about one nuke left but had the Japanese think we had many more so that they would finally surrender. If we had invaded then more Japanese soldier and civilian lives would have been lost along with hundreds of thousands of American soldier lives. I recall how on one island that we had advanced to, the civilians all began jumping off cliffs and killing themselves because they were brainwashed into thinking we were going to kill them all and torture them. On mainland Japan the men and boys were all trained to fight to the death and to never surrender to their enemies. Many more civilians would have died trying to fight or by killing themselves and soldiers on both sides would die.

People had to die, it was all a moral decision and it is irrefutable to say that America didn't make the choice that was less lethal and quicker. I don't see why no one flips out over Churchill not defending one of his cities that he knew was going to be bombed (many civilians getting killed) because he didn't want the Germans to know that they were listening to their radio signal.

  • 01.03.2013 12:51 PM PDT

"I will show you how a true Prussian officer fights!"

"And i will show you where the iron crosses grow..."

- "Cross of Iron"


Posted by: bergXX09
Everyone in this thread is such a conspirator or a total fool. Both bombs were necessary and in fact both bombings caused less casualties than our fire bombing. We warned them before the first bombing and told them what we had. They ignored and so we nuked a territory. The Japanese still refused to surrender and we gave them warning again and then we bombed them again. We really only had about one nuke left but had the Japanese think we had many more so that they would finally surrender. If we had invaded then more Japanese soldier and civilian lives would have been lost along with hundreds of thousands of American soldier lives. I recall how on one island that we had advanced to, the civilians all began jumping off cliffs and killing themselves because they were brainwashed into thinking we were going to kill them all and torture them. On mainland Japan the men and boys were all trained to fight to the death and to never surrender to their enemies. Many more civilians would have died trying to fight or by killing themselves and soldiers on both sides would die.

People had to die, it was all a moral decision and it is irrefutable to say that America didn't make the choice that was less lethal and quicker. I don't see why no one flips out over Churchill not defending one of his cities that he knew was going to be bombed (many civilians getting killed) because he didn't want the Germans to know that they were listening to their radio signal.


Everyone in this thread has already discussed and debated what you said besides the Churchill situation. Not sure how were the fools.

  • 01.03.2013 12:53 PM PDT

Aw man I hate it when people defend their homes and stuff.

  • 01.03.2013 12:54 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Legendary Member

Posted by: Ric_Adbur
Posted by: Baph117
Canadian Na­zism is a polite ideology, ok?
"Into the boxcar now... there you go. Oh, watch your head. Here, let me help you... Yep, showers are right through there. No problem at all."


Posted by: bergXX09
Everyone in this thread is such a conspirator or a total fool. Both bombs were necessary and in fact both bombings caused less casualties than our fire bombing. We warned them before the first bombing and told them what we had. They ignored and so we nuked a territory. The Japanese still refused to surrender and we gave them warning again and then we bombed them again. We really only had about one nuke left but had the Japanese think we had many more so that they would finally surrender. If we had invaded then more Japanese soldier and civilian lives would have been lost along with hundreds of thousands of American soldier lives. I recall how on one island that we had advanced to, the civilians all began jumping off cliffs and killing themselves because they were brainwashed into thinking we were going to kill them all and torture them. On mainland Japan the men and boys were all trained to fight to the death and to never surrender to their enemies. Many more civilians would have died trying to fight or by killing themselves and soldiers on both sides would die.

People had to die, it was all a moral decision and it is irrefutable to say that America didn't make the choice that was less lethal and quicker. I don't see why no one flips out over Churchill not defending one of his cities that he knew was going to be bombed (many civilians getting killed) because he didn't want the Germans to know that they were listening to their radio signal.

  • 01.03.2013 12:58 PM PDT


Posted by: Raptorx7

Posted by: bergXX09
Everyone in this thread is such a conspirator or a total fool. Both bombs were necessary and in fact both bombings caused less casualties than our fire bombing. We warned them before the first bombing and told them what we had. They ignored and so we nuked a territory. The Japanese still refused to surrender and we gave them warning again and then we bombed them again. We really only had about one nuke left but had the Japanese think we had many more so that they would finally surrender. If we had invaded then more Japanese soldier and civilian lives would have been lost along with hundreds of thousands of American soldier lives. I recall how on one island that we had advanced to, the civilians all began jumping off cliffs and killing themselves because they were brainwashed into thinking we were going to kill them all and torture them. On mainland Japan the men and boys were all trained to fight to the death and to never surrender to their enemies. Many more civilians would have died trying to fight or by killing themselves and soldiers on both sides would die.

People had to die, it was all a moral decision and it is irrefutable to say that America didn't make the choice that was less lethal and quicker. I don't see why no one flips out over Churchill not defending one of his cities that he knew was going to be bombed (many civilians getting killed) because he didn't want the Germans to know that they were listening to their radio signal.


Everyone in this thread has already discussed and debated what you said besides the Churchill situation. Not sure how were the fools.

Because I just typed out known facts and predictions rather than "what ifs" or posting bullcrap theories otherwise.

  • 01.03.2013 1:01 PM PDT

"I will show you how a true Prussian officer fights!"

"And i will show you where the iron crosses grow..."

- "Cross of Iron"


Posted by: bergXX09

Posted by: Raptorx7

Posted by: bergXX09
Everyone in this thread is such a conspirator or a total fool. Both bombs were necessary and in fact both bombings caused less casualties than our fire bombing. We warned them before the first bombing and told them what we had. They ignored and so we nuked a territory. The Japanese still refused to surrender and we gave them warning again and then we bombed them again. We really only had about one nuke left but had the Japanese think we had many more so that they would finally surrender. If we had invaded then more Japanese soldier and civilian lives would have been lost along with hundreds of thousands of American soldier lives. I recall how on one island that we had advanced to, the civilians all began jumping off cliffs and killing themselves because they were brainwashed into thinking we were going to kill them all and torture them. On mainland Japan the men and boys were all trained to fight to the death and to never surrender to their enemies. Many more civilians would have died trying to fight or by killing themselves and soldiers on both sides would die.

People had to die, it was all a moral decision and it is irrefutable to say that America didn't make the choice that was less lethal and quicker. I don't see why no one flips out over Churchill not defending one of his cities that he knew was going to be bombed (many civilians getting killed) because he didn't want the Germans to know that they were listening to their radio signal.


Everyone in this thread has already discussed and debated what you said besides the Churchill situation. Not sure how were the fools.

Because I just typed out known facts and predictions rather than "what ifs" or posting bullcrap theories otherwise.


You are correct in what you typed but everyone in this thread aren't fools or conspirators except for some of those extreme answers.

As for your factual answers it is hard to say that anything in history is indeed FACTUAL. We will never know all dimensions of it, it is literally impossible.

  • 01.03.2013 1:03 PM PDT

It's sad that we bombed them, it's also sad putting down a dog with rabies....

The Japanese were already training their women and children to fight on the front lines.

The chose to sacrifice everything, what they did not like, was that they did not get to take anyone else with them.

  • 01.03.2013 1:05 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Yes. Frankly they should have dropped three bombs.

  • 01.03.2013 1:06 PM PDT

I like to play Reach for fun. I hate MLG, campers, armor lock, and team killers because they ruin that fun. Deal with it.

I'm tired of hearing this. The second one was necessary; Japan wasn't going to stop until we showed them what would happen if they kept fighting. Besides, what choice did we have? The only other option was an actual invasion of Japan and that would've increased the death toll on Japan's side tremendously as well as our side.

  • 01.03.2013 1:07 PM PDT