jump to content
my subreddits
more »
Want to join? Log in or sign up in seconds.|
[-]
use the following search parameters to narrow your results:
subreddit:subreddit
find submissions in "subreddit"
author:username
find submissions by "username"
site:example.com
find submissions from "example.com"
url:text
search for "text" in url
selftext:text
search for "text" in self post contents
self:yes (or self:no)
include (or exclude) self posts
nsfw:yes (or nsfw:no)
include (or exclude) results marked as NSFW
e.g. subreddit:aww site:imgur.com dog
this post was submitted on
32,509 points (87% upvoted)
shortlink:
reset password

todayilearned

unsubscribesubscribe15,269,967 learners readers
8,807 users here now
  • You learn something new every day; what did you learn today?
  • Submit interesting and specific facts that you just found out (not broad information you looked up, TodayILearned is not /r/wikipedia).

Posting rules

  1. Submissions must be verifiable. Please link directly to a reliable source that supports every claim in your post title. Images alone do not count as valid references. Videos are fine so long as they come from reputable sources (e.g. BBC, Discovery, etc).
  2. No personal opinions, anecdotes or subjective statements (e.g "TIL xyz is a great movie").
  3. No recent sources. Any sources (blog, article, press release, video, etc.) more recent than two months are not allowed.
  4. No submissions regarding or related to the following
    1. Recent politics/politicians
    2. Police misconduct
    3. Inflammatory submissions relating to religion/race/gender
  5. No misleading claims. Posts that omit essential information, or present unrelated facts in a way that suggest a connection will be removed.
  6. Rephrase your post title if the following are not met:
    1. Titles must begin with "TIL ..."
    2. Make them descriptive, concise and specific (e.g. not "TIL something interesting about bacon").
    3. Titles must be able to stand on their own without requiring readers to click on a link. Starting your title with a why/what/who/where/how modifier should be unnecessary.*
    4. "TIL about ..." and other broad posts don't belong on TIL. Try /r/Wikipedia, etc. instead, or be more specific (and avoid the word "about").
    5. "TIL how to ..." posts belong on /r/HowTo.
  7. No submissions related to the usage, existence or features of specific software/websites (e.g. "TIL you can click on widgets in WidgetMaker 1.22").
  8. All NSFW links must be tagged (including comments).

    Please see the wiki for more detailed explanations of the rules.

Additional info

  • If your post does not appear in the new queue and you think it meets the above rules, please contact the moderators (include a link to your reddit.com post, not your story).
  • Please report spam, inaccurate or otherwise inappropriate posts by messaging the moderators, as this helps us remove them more promptly!
  • More information available on the TIL FAQ and wiki.

Frequent TILs Repost List

As of December 2016
  • This list was compiled from /r/todayilearned community suggestions by its members. If your TIL is found on this list, it will be removed. The titles have been abridged for the sake of brevity, however the context remains the same. This list is subject to change. The purpose is to keep content fresh on /r/todayilearned as requested by its members. If you are interested in reading about the TILs on this list use the search box feature and enter the keywords to pull up past TILs.

Weekly point ranking

rank user points
1 · /u/jack 0
2 · /u/prashantbioinfo 0
3 · /u/MrDNL 0
4 · /u/didyouwoof 0
5 · /u/boornish 0

Etiquette

We ask that you please do the following:
  1. avoid mobile versions of websites (e.g. m.wikipedia.org)
  2. link to the appropriate heading when referencing an article (particularly on Wikipedia)
  3. link to the appropriate start time when referencing videos (e.g. on YouTube)
  4. add [PDF] or [NSFW] tags to your posts, as necessary.
  5. Please avoid reposting TILs that have already made the front page in the past
Please also read the site-wide Reddiquette.
  • You are loved.
a community for
Announcement: For the love of all that is holy, PLEASE read the rules in the wiki or sidebar before posting, and PLEASE message the mods about inappropriate/inaccurate posts.
you are viewing a single comment's thread.
[–]i3-4160 35 points36 points37 points  (22 children)
"Nuking a few civilians" is a purposely flippant and dumb sounding way to put it. Not invading Japan saved hundreds of thousands of American lives.
[–]Ronkerjake 2 points3 points4 points  (2 children)
Eh. I still believe we were "more right" than others in the war, but the Japanese were willing to surrender if they kept their emperor. Truman didn't like that answer, so we dropped the bombs and they ended up keeping the emperor anyway. Kinda fucked up.
[–]dandeliondave 7 points8 points9 points  (0 children)
Can I have a source to that? Not challenging you but ive heard it before and never been shown a source for it.
[–]Hippo_Singularity 4 points5 points6 points  (0 children)
they ended up keeping the emperor anyway
No, they didn't. They wanted the emperor to remain in power. After the surrender, the emperor was reduced to a purely ceremonial figure. He is constitutionally barred from any power of government and can only act in matters of state as directed by the government.
[–]hameleona 2 points3 points4 points  (11 children)
Hey, I'm not against it. But claiming some moral high-ground is just stupid, considering all the things everybody did in WWII.
[–]Proditus 23 points24 points25 points  (9 children)
War involves lots of bad things happening to lots of people. It is the very nature of conflict. But a side can still be morally upstanding if they act in a way that spares more lives that would be otherwise needlessly wasted.
When the Americans and the British occupied cities, they didn't commit mass murder of the populations. They gave suspected war criminals access to a trial instead of simply murdering them all. They used the atomic bombs because to do otherwise would cost hundreds of thousands more American lives, and millions more Japanese lives.
When you compare this to the Germans and Japanese who were very fond of ethnic cleansings in any region they touched, or the Soviets who brutalized the defeated in the name of vengeance rather than grant clemency, there are definitely other parties involved that are morally just.
[–]Cole3003 5 points6 points7 points  (7 children)
Thank you! I know it's hard to accept, but the truth is that the atomic bombs actually SAVED lives. Neither side wanted to give in, and the Japanese would die fighting. When the US forces were island hopping, the civilians attacked with anything they had, and many would rather die fighting or kill themselves than surrender. We showed the Japanese that we could obliterate their country with nukes every week (it was a bluff, we couldn't afford to make many more at that point), and that was what made the Japanese finally give in.
[–]CryptoQuiet -4 points-3 points-2 points  (6 children)
I'm not from the US, but my argument against this is it saved military lives at the cost of civilian, non-combatant lives. The United States decided it would rather bomb civilian population centers instead of having to deal with the enemies military. It seems to me that a lot of wars could have been won easier with the disregard of civilian fallout.
Now, because it did, by most accounts, result in less deaths than a ground invasion would have, maybe in the grand scheme of things an argument can be made that it was a net positive, but at best if was a cowardly act.
[–]Hippo_Singularity 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
Japanese industry was largely dispersed throughout their urban centers. It's also worth noting that Hiroshima Castle was the command center for the defense of southern Japan, and Nagasaki was both a major port and home to several Mitsubishi arms factories. In fact, unlike the other potential targets, it had never been placed on the reserved list. There had been attempts to carpet bomb the factories previously, but the city's geography just made them too difficult to hit with conventional bombs.
[–]AngryTrollface 3 points4 points5 points  (4 children)
In japanese culture back then, every civilian was a military asset, not to mention the united states warned the government, and on top of it dropped leaflets too, that by every measure was a blessing that diddnt have to be done, so i will absolutely call you out it was a cowardly act. Japan had options, they knew a war with the united states was a crap shoot and still took their chances, we made it to their doorstep and yet still decided to fight, they knew via gemany, that we were working on nuclear weapons. Japan knew the consequences, the very foundation of their culture made their emperor refuse to surrender, their was nothing cowardly about those, japan was treated FAR FAR better then it should have considering. The only thing i would say that was fucked was the firebombing of tokyo.
[–]CryptoQuiet -2 points-1 points0 points  (3 children)
Is there any truth to the claim that Japan was willing to surrender if allowed to mainttheir Emperor? And that post A-Bombs, they were in fact allowed to keep the Emperor?
I only recently read this, and then saw it today again elsewhere in this thread. I haven't had the opportunity to verify. If it is true, then it certainly doesn't seem like the US did all they could to avoid such a step.
If that's not factual, then I should probably stop repeating unverified claims.
It's quite possible my opinion on the matter was formed because I don't know all the intricacies of the situation. But while I understand that the war wasn't the US's fault, I have a hard time believing that something would justify specifically targeting a heavily populated civilian area as opposed to, say a vital military base. I don't mean to shriek "think of the children", but, you know, there were children there. Sick, elderly people. I don't see how these can be considered "military assets".
I'm having a hard time grasping how it wouldn't qualify as an act of terrorism (by definition, not in the derogatory sense).
Japan is equally at fault for not avoiding the situation. I don't bash America indiscriminately. But this outcome has always struck me as one that should have been avoided at all cost.
Edit: left off a sentence at the end of my 4th paragraph.
[–]Hippo_Singularity 3 points4 points5 points  (1 child)
After the bombing of Nagasaki, Japan's Supreme Council was divided on whether to ask for a single condition surrender, demanding the emperor remain in power, or a four condition surrender, which also stipulated no occupation, no Allied prosecution of war criminals and self administration of Japanese disarmament. The cabinet deadlocked over the two proposals as well. When the emperor finally ordered the surrender, it was based on the single condition proposal. That was flatly rejected by the Allies, and the strategic bombing campaign was resumed. Two days later, the emperor was finally convinced to issue an unconditional surrender.
So yes, Japan was willing to surrender if they had been allowed to keep their emperor...but that only came about after the bombs had been dropped. And the emperor was in no way allowed to remain in power. Under the Japanese constitution, he is allowed no governmental power. He acts as a ceremonial head of state, but only when and how the government so directs.
[–]CryptoQuiet -1 points0 points1 point  (0 children)
Thank you. Glad I wasn't completely off base, though your additional information changes my view a bit
[–]AngryTrollface 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
I cant really comment on the emperor part as im not completely in depth with that whole part either, As for the targets, they were not just civilianised areas its not that simple, these were still key targets against japan ie food distrubution/manufacturing towns and what not, so you cant really say that, because hitting them was a huge blow regardless considering their after all, just a tiny island nation after all so wiping out one of your major manufacturing cities really sets you back.
[–]slider2k [score hidden]  (0 children)
Damn, first time I hear nuking two civilian cities was a moral thing to do. "It's better civilians die than the soldiers." US are so good at excusing themselves.
[–]somajones 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
So you're a German soldier in Berlin in April of 1945. Who would you rather surrender to, the Russians or the US? It is as simple as that. Your chances of being treated humanely were far, far greater if you were captured by Americans.
[–]recklesssneks -1 points0 points1 point  (3 children)
At the cost of killing mostly women and children, all of whom were certainly non-combatants.
It is what it is.
That's also why we adopted the Geneva Convention.
[–]uss1701jb 4 points5 points6 points  (2 children)
I'd kill 250000 non-combatants rather than kill way more troops on both sides.
Bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the best action to take. If we invaded Japan, not only could a Soviet-March-To-Berlin atrocity happen, but millions more would die.
[–]recklesssneks 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
I'd rather not kill anyone. But you know, you don't always get that luxury.
Bottom line, war is fucked up. Fucked up shit happens. I just don't get the people who look on that kind of stuff with enthusiasm.
[–]Bloody_Hangnail 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
And Japanese lives
[–]TopHatMikey 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
And killed hundreds of thousands of Japanese lives, most of them civilians. Also, America did invade Japan. Okinawa.
[–]yergunnadiedude -1 points0 points1 point  (0 children)
The number of people who would have died in an invasion of the Japanese mainland is estimated in the millions even at minimum
Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy (updated). © 2017 reddit inc. All rights reserved.
REDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are registered trademarks of reddit inc.
π Rendered by PID 6020 on app-45 at 2017-01-29 12:36:21.209858+00:00 running 01350e9 country code: NL.
Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies.  Learn More
0%
 
10%
 
20%
 
30%
 
40%
 
50%
 
60%
 
70%
 
80%
 
90%
 
100%