あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]protohomBharat 21ポイント22ポイント  (180子コメント)

Yep, Pearl Harbour was the justification for nuking cities and refusing them treatment for 'unconditional' surrender.

[–]CurlyNippleHairs 107ポイント108ポイント  (179子コメント)

No I think World War 2 was justification for that. Human rights went out the window a long time before the nukes dropped.

[–]protohomBharat -36ポイント-35ポイント  (178子コメント)

Not really.

Edit : Wow, -6 in half an hour in Polandball? Looks like angry Muricans began to downvote historical fact that goes against their nationalistic narrative.

Edit2 : Japan wanted to surrender conditionally, relinquishing their Asian possessions by conquest, by July 1945. For this, they extended diplomatic offers to United States through Soviet Union. Source : 1 and 2. Now, if the reason was to end the war, United States could have accepted the offer, but they wanted unconditional surrender from Japan. For this, nukes were dropped, killing about 200,000 and condemning about the same for a far worse fate as the Hibakusha. If you think such a price in human life and misery was required for 'unconditional' surrender, then move on.

[–]DrdresSweden 48ポイント49ポイント  (103子コメント)

What

[–]tungstencomptonUniquely Singapore 43ポイント44ポイント  (10子コメント)

The only people opposed to the idea that America is a sadistic mass murderer and who are willing to downvote the notion must be butthurt Americans, duh.

[–]sabasNLNetherlands best lands! 26ポイント27ポイント  (9子コメント)

Well no, the thing is that it's true that human rights were not a thing during the war. All sides committed horrible war crimes.

For some reason this guy seems to be implying only the US committed crimes. That's bullshit.

[–]tungstencomptonUniquely Singapore 12ポイント13ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm sorry, I must have layered the sarcasm on my statement too thinly.

[–]protohomBharat -4ポイント-3ポイント  (7子コメント)

I'm not implying only the US committed war-crimes. I don't know where you got that notion, and I'm not so naive as to do that.

[–]KnightModernSmoke Country 4ポイント5ポイント  (6子コメント)

No I think World War 2 was justification for that. Human rights went out the window a long time before the nukes dropped.

not really (your comment)

[–]zeniizJapan 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

How in the hell does that imply only America committed war crimes?

[–]Unsub_LeftyPennsylvania 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

It implies that the only violation of human rights was the dropping of the atomic bombs, which was done by the Americans. It disregards the previous violations (Rape of Nanking) in which Japan also committed human rights atrocities

[–]protohomBharat -3ポイント-2ポイント  (2子コメント)

Not really meant what I wrote as the detailed response later.

[–]zeniizJapan 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

I think logic and reading comprehension is beyond the reach of some people here. "OMG he said something bad about MURICA, burn a cross on his lawn!!!"

[–]Sadnot 13ポイント14ポイント  (2子コメント)

Oooor, you got downvoted for writing a two word dismissive response, maybe.

[–]protohomBharat -3ポイント-2ポイント  (1子コメント)

I've edited my response.

[–]Sadnot 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Thanks, that was informative.

[–]124876720The Athens of the North 9ポイント10ポイント  (18子コメント)

Japan wanted to surrender conditionally

Wrong. Togo had sounded out the Soviets with a conditional peace offer, but the Japanese cabinet could not surrender without unanimous approval, and such approval was not present. The Supreme War Council was divided - the military hawks wanted to offer a surrender that let them keep the Emperor as well as Korea and Taiwan, and deal with demobilization and war criminals themselves, whilst the civilian doves wanted to offer one that just kept the Emperor. In any case there was no possibility of Japan surrendering without the approval of the Supreme War Council - and the Army had an effective veto over SWC policy anyway. So Japan didn't "want to surrender"; some of them wanted to make a delusional offer for a peace they didn't deserve, which wasn't even communicated to the Allies in any significant detail, whilst others wanted a more reasonable peace, which they couldn't get through the SWC in any case.

"Their Asian possessions by conquest" was understood to include only those territories gained since the outbreak of war in Asia in 1936 - so this conditional "surrender" would have let the Japanese keep exploiting their captive populations in Korea and Taiwan, as well as allowed the old militarists to continue to rule.

The atom bomb was a perfectly reasonable response to such a "peace offer".

[–]protohomBharat -2ポイント-1ポイント  (17子コメント)

I'd agree with Korea being captive, but not Taiwan. My point was, dropping nukes was not about ending the war. It was about obtaining an unconditional surrender, in favour of the US, guaranteeing American hegemony in Japan.

[–]124876720The Athens of the North 6ポイント7ポイント  (10子コメント)

You speak as though those objectives can be separated.

The Americans wanted to avoid having to launch an invasion of the Home Islands that was projected to result in 1 million American casualties. So its true that their concern was primarily the welfare of Americans, not Japanese, but that doesn't change the fact that a continuation of the war would have resulted in greater Japanese casualties too. There's nothing wrong with that either; the Americans were at war, and placing the lives of their own men over those of the enemy was a perfectly legitimate calculation.

America had every right to claim hegemony in postwar Japan. Japan was a totalitarian rogue state, that had, without provocation, attacked the United States, which had done the lion's share of the heavy lifting in defeating it.

[–]protohomBharat -2ポイント-1ポイント  (9子コメント)

US did not do the lion's share of defeating it. British India did their fair share too. The largest Japanese military defeat was the Battle of Imphal. US need not resort to an invasion if they agreed to a negotiated surrender.

[–]124876720The Athens of the North 6ポイント7ポイント  (8子コメント)

A negotiated surrender would have left those responsible for the war in power and Japanese forces in Korea and Formosa. It would have been a betrayal of the Chinese and Koreans and a violation of guarantees already given to the Soviets. Moreover, as I showed you in my previous comments, a negotiated surrender was never possible. The Japanese never agreed on surrender terms, and refused to open surrender discussions with the Americans.

Without the assistance of the US, we would have lost many thousands more men in Burma and India, which were only ever marginal theatres. The British and India forces that drove the Japanese out of the Raj did so using mainly American equipment, and with American reinforcement, and with Japan unable to commit more men due to the American navy and the American-equipped Chinese army sitting on top of their lines of communication. The main effect of the campaign was that Britain could abandon Asia as victors.

Imphal was the largest Japanese defeat up to that point. Japanese casualties were greater at Okinawa and in Manchuria during the Soviet operation there.

[–]protohomBharat -2ポイント-1ポイント  (7子コメント)

A negotiated surrender would have left those responsible for the war in power and Japanese forces in Korea and Formosa.

And would have saved the lives of 200,000 innocents and another 200,000 from becoming Hibakusha. Is justice preferred to such an overwhelming human cost? Or is it applicable only to the Japanese, and not to the European colonists?

[–]124876720The Athens of the North 8ポイント9ポイント  (6子コメント)

And how many would have died when Formosa and Korea inevitably began struggling for their independence? How many might have died when the Japanese military began round 2, or when democratic forces in Japan began agitating for the fascist government that had lead them to ruin and humiliation to leave power?

The terms the Japanese offered were delusional. Utterly delusional. It was not on the Allies, victims of Japanese aggression, to accommodate the Japanese militarists or their Emperor. The destruction of Japanese militarism and its imperial cult are the direct results of Japan's unconditional surrender, and the result has been a peaceful and democratic Japan, and peace in East Asia.

And, even if we accept a negotiated surrender would be better, it's irrelevant, because Japan never offered one!

[–]ArtfulLoungerTaiwan 1ポイント2ポイント  (5子コメント)

Taiwan was seized by the Japanese from the Chinese in 1895 in the first Sino-Japanese war. Taiwan is 98% Han Chinese.

[–]protohomBharat -2ポイント-1ポイント  (4子コメント)

There was no widespread atrocities by the Japanese army in Taiwan as in Korea. Some would say Taiwan prospered under Japanese rule(?)

I do know about Taiwanese history. I learned Chinese under a Taiwanese teacher.

[–]ArtfulLoungerTaiwan 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

Taiwanese people did have a relatively decent time under the Japanese. That said, there is something to be said for self-determination.

[–]protohomBharat -2ポイント-1ポイント  (2子コメント)

We also had a need for self-determination you know, but burgers didn't care about it then.

[–]blackninja9939United Kingdom 15ポイント16ポイント  (14子コメント)

In the nicest way... you're an idiot :D

[–]protohomBharat -2ポイント-1ポイント  (13子コメント)

Care to elaborate?

[–]blackninja9939United Kingdom 10ポイント11ポイント  (12子コメント)

I am pretty sure you can read over all of the comments done by other people to figure that one out

[–]tungstencomptonUniquely Singapore 2ポイント3ポイント  (11子コメント)

You're just saying that because you want to assert Western hegemony over all forms of discourse, including internet dick-waving.

[–]blackninja9939United Kingdom 7ポイント8ポイント  (7子コメント)

Nothing wrong with some internet dick-waving or western hegemony jeez

[–]tungstencomptonUniquely Singapore 0ポイント1ポイント  (6子コメント)

Mmyes, Meatspin truly is the high point of Western culture, never to be topped except perhaps by waffles of a certain tincture.

[–]blackninja9939United Kingdom 3ポイント4ポイント  (5子コメント)

Or a certain party with a citric nature

[–]protohomBharat 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

You don't have to mock me of my purported bias on every comment I make, you know.

[–]tungstencomptonUniquely Singapore 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

You do enough of that yourself.

Sorry, that's actually a bit harsh.

[–]protohomBharat -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

By insisting upon some other historical reading by citing sources? I'm Indian. I was raised on Soviet books and American TV.

[–]ArtfulLoungerTaiwan 21ポイント22ポイント  (20子コメント)

Many terrible things were done during WWII to and by the Japanese. But mostly by. Yes they got nuked. They also had the Batan Death March, Hell (Slave) Ships, Unit 731 performing inhuman experiments on Chinese, the Rape of Nanking, and the overall treatment of Chinese as subhuman. So they can't really claim any sort of moral high ground just by getting nuked. No one forced them to invade half of Asia.

[–]TheG-man98Gib me all your clay 16ポイント17ポイント  (1子コメント)

I don't think there is a big difference between firebombing a city and nuking it.

[–]protohomBharat 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

There is. For example, no one knew what can a full scale nuclear blast can do humans. This is why Murican doctors refused treatment to survivors and studied them. Also, heard of the Hibakusha? It's one thing to de, and another to live on a life of unbearable misery.

[–]jPaoloGrey Poland creator 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

Holy shit!

Oh man, no other nation downvotes here as heavily as fatass burgers.

[–]protohomBharat 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

You missed out all the fun though, if you were here, this could've been turned into a second hypocrates.

[–]ArtfulLoungerTaiwan 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

Make that -34

[–]protohomBharat -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'd set a new Polandball record I think. My total negative Karma in this thread is -170.

[–]PerNihilAdNihilOne Nation Under Trees! 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

mRRicans understanding of history is quite limited

they imagine the world was created in 1492 and that they are "god's chosen people" - they even created an entire mythology to justify their human rights violations (ie, 'manifest destiny') which they to this day will shrug off as somehow 'irrelevant' (even though they happened only, you know, 200 years ago and are well-documented though 1/3 of them have no problems swallowing whole undocumented (and perhaps even plagiarised) fictional works dating as far back as several thousand years ago

[–]martybadIowa 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

No, history started in 1776, everything before that was a mistake.

[–]protohomBharat -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

But I expected those who come here to have some brains. Seems like I'm wrong.

[–]Takuya813Germany 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

I love how people are downvoting you and saying things like “ we don’t know the main reason”

I studied this as one of the intelligence failures of the united states. We had intel, we knew the soviets could mediate peace. We had a bad secretary of state who misled fdr and got him to witheld information from the ussr at Yalta which led us to nuke japan and the cold war.

We also had a few translation issues along the way.

So yeah-- could have ended the war without nukes.

[–]polioperativeAMAMURICA 8ポイント9ポイント  (0子コメント)

No, thats dumb as shit. The Allied powers made the decision to only accept an unconditional surrender from Japan and Germany. The USSR couldn't mediate because they had already agreed to invade Japanese mainland possessions.

The only worst war crime was committed by Japan and Germany, they lost.

[–]protohomBharat -5ポイント-4ポイント  (0子コメント)

Thank you. What really confuses me is that most don't even bother to read the sources before commenting and accuses me of anti-American bias. If you're an American, why do you have a Germany flair?

[–]martybadIowa 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

Wow I really thought you were /u/jpaolo there for a second

[–]protohomBharat 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

jPaolo is amateur compared to me now.

[–]ButtstacheOhio 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Just as dumb, but with less to say!