Site will be offline for about 40 mins in a bit due to moving server from kitchen to living room lol. LULZ.COM will still be up, buy merch please

>the Japanese wouldn't surrender no matter what. >we had to drop the nukes so the Japanese would surrender

>the Japanese wouldn't surrender no matter what
>we had to drop the nukes so the Japanese would surrender

Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68

UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68

Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >>the Japanese wouldn't surrender no matter what
    Unironically yes, the Japanese military didn't want to surrender, it all came down to the Emperor's own decision making and he hadn't demonstrated any leadership capacity up to that point.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Unironically yes, the Japanese military didn't want to surrender
      They didn't want to UNCONDITIONALLY surrender.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The Japanese military wanted a normal, negotiated peace treaty. The allies were the ones insisting upon an UNCONDITIONAL surrender, they said so in the Casablanca Conference.

        Maybe they should have sued for peace earlier when they actually had some leverage like Italy did.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          The idea was to maul the American forces that badly in the first invasions that they would have a much stronger bargaining position. A very good chance of it working if not for the bomb.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The Japanese military wanted a normal, negotiated peace treaty. The allies were the ones insisting upon an UNCONDITIONAL surrender, they said so in the Casablanca Conference.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        If you lose as devastatingly and as clearly as they did you have no right to demand a conditional surrender to a force that's barely been as impacted as you are. The Japanese were struggling even before they were fighting the fricking Americans and yet you have homosexuals like you going "but why would they want to unconditionally surrender!" The entire war started because they let a nation conditionally surrender after the last World War despite it clearly being defeated you mong.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >despite it clearly being defeated
          Germany surrendered while still controlling foreign territory.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            And if fighting went on would they be able to hold that territory? Obviously not. By 1918 Germany was retreating. Retreating slowly but they were on the Blackfoot and the German leadership knew it. Why waste more lives on an unwinnable war? Which is why they chose to surrender and meet the demands of the armistice. "Peace with honor" even though they knew the way was lost.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The other guy basically made the argument I was going to make, but I'll add again, why the frick would anyone do the same for Japan when they were in a far lesser position after the results of the German debacle? Their allies too I'll remind you.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >it all came down to the Emperor's own decision making
      You have no idea what you are talking about.

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I just told you the Japanese would never surrender no matter what under any circumstances, regardless of anything. That's why we had to make them surrender.

  3. 1 month ago
    Radiochan

    Based on data from the Okinawa campaign, yes; it was estimated that more than a million Japanese civilians would have died over the course of Operation Downfall
    Also the militarists had a plan to either overthrow and /or kidnap the Emperor and carry on the war even after the Nagasaki bomb

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      A couple of mid-ranking officers made up a plan because they misinterpreted an American clarification of the Potsdam declaration as calling for the enslavement of Japanese people.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >it was estimated that more than a million Japanese civilians would have died over the course of Operation Downfall
      Wrong, you are thinking of projected US casualties. Did you know they were going to use chemical weapons on the cities?

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    god damn i love how hard they found out.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    5 rubles has been deposited in your account

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Not true, the Japanese military wanted a conditional surrender that would allow them to maintain their government. Their plan was to bleed the Allies to the point it wouldn't be worth it to force capitulation. The atomic bombs were to show that the Allies can and would just annihilate the Japanese if they did not unconditionally surrender.

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >the Japanese were ready to surrender and we nuked them for no reason
    Do the people posting this cope have any explanation for why we nuked Nagasaki then? There's a few (ludicrous) justifications for nuking just one city, but there was absolutely no reason to nuke Nagasaki too. It would literally just be a waste of a nuke, even if you dgaf about the city.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The Japanese were ready to surrender after the Soviets invaded Manchuria, the 2nd nuke gave them the opportunity to join the western sphere instead of the Soviets.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        How does that make any sense? HUH?

        The Japanese. Would. Never. Surrender. Under. Any. Circumstances. Ever.

        Which is why we had to nuke them to make them surrender.

        Yeah but plenty of people argue otherwise and I want to hear from them, moron.
        I don't know if you're been paying attention to the outside world, but the common view is becoming that the nukes were unjustified.
        I think the necessity of the second bombing shows that Japan still wouldn't surrender, even after getting nuked once.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          The emperor in his surrender speech cites the bombs not the invasions

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            that's because of to whom he was hoping to surrender - to the Americans not to the Soviets.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The Japanese. Would. Never. Surrender. Under. Any. Circumstances. Ever.

      Which is why we had to nuke them to make them surrender.

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Noooooo you can't just use your ultimate weapon because.... WELL, YOU JUST CAN'T OKAY!?!?
    I literally never understood the argument here. What the frick even is it? Just crying that they lost after starting it?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      They sincerely think that the Japanese were ready to surrender and become an enlightened democracy, but America wanted to nuke them. They give a slew of nonsensical reasons why America would do this, like scaring the Soviets or just because Truman wanted to do it.
      You can see why they would be outraged, if those facts were true instead of obvious lies.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >you can't just murder hundreds of thousands of men women children and babies because.... because you just cant okay

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    nuclear weapons are fake and a cover story because they wanted to end the war before the ussr could get northern japan. hiroshima was firebombed like tokyo

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    For all the fabulous expense, coordination, prioritization and generational human genius poured into the making of the atomic bomb

    is it somehow unreasonable for someone to speculate that the all-capable, endlessly creative US might well have found another way to end the war besides shooting their way onto a beach or incinerating a zillion babies? If we had wanted to bad enough.

    Even the bombs didn't convince the militarist holdouts. And they were finally foiled by a basket of fricking panties.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The Japs would never surrender, which is why they surrendered

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >poster with hindsite of a conflict 80 years ago wonders why America didnt spend more time trying to figure out a more peaceful solution to the bloodiest war in human history concerning the enemy nation that attacked them in an unprovoked sneak attack
      youre an idiot.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >unprovoked sneak attack
        Roosevelt did everything he could to lead Japan to commit an act of war, and had an enormous amount of intel regarding their plans and logistics. Forces on the ground in PH certainly had no warning, the same can't be said about Roosevelt.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >moronic conspiracy theory slop
          Not an argument

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            It's practically out of the realm of "theory" thanks to the committees who investigated it. The problem is they reported their findings after the war was over, when the myth was already established.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >It's practically out of the realm of "theory" thanks to the committees who investigated it.
            No it isnt. Its completely bunk bullshit that no out outside of crazy internet conspiracy theoriest take seriously.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            embarrassingly weak gaslighting

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Not selling oil isn't a warcrime. Why does Japan have a right to buy American oil?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Japan shouldn't have taken the bait then

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >wonders why
        lol who's fricking wondering? We hated the Japanese, we had been fighting for years, we had cool new bombs on hand.
        >hindsite (sic)
        "you're" hindsight is even more egregious if you say there was no other way. In the conceit of hindsight you narrow the whole field of possible futures from that point to the one that, conveniently, actually happened. I don't really buy that. It's realistic to say that there were many possible ways that things could play out if people had made other decisions.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >we will seethe endlessly over the 2 bombs that destroyed a city each and not the already ongoing bombing campaign that had obliterated a number of Japanese cities
      >those are different because uh it's more fair or something or whatever

      There were three other plans you disingenuous homosexual, of which would have been far more destructive to the Japanese people. They were: 1) have a giant land invasion likely resulting in multiple millions of casualties and great damage to Japanese infrastructure, 2) literally blocked the entire island chain and starve them out because they were a net food importer and already facing hunger issues. Or 3) continue to the conventional bombing campaign which was effectively already doing equivalent damage as the nuclear weapons just with more man and material cost and without the mental shock of obliterating a city with a single bomb. There you go those were the realistic options available to the USA at that stage in the war. Trying to invent some meme outcome where the Americans just accept a conditional surrender from a nation they had just spent years fighting in a bitter war is childishly naive and about as attached to reality as Communist ideas on economics.

      War isn't fair and it isn't fun, seething over the morality of 2 cities getting obliterated at the tall end of the most distinctive war in history where in everyone capable of obliterating their enemies population end industrial centers was doing just that is pathetic and blatantly designed around the Chomsky-esue morality meme where in people make endless excuses for the shitty actions of every country but the USA even when it's actions can be easily justified time and time again.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The bombings of Tokyo and Dresden are controversial to this day.

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Vae Victis, homie. Don't start shit you can't finish.

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I just wish to God we still had population that would accept shit like this without more moral homosexualry
    90% of the problems the west has faced comes from baby boomers and their kids being dickless fricking homosexualS who cant bring themselves to do the base unpleasant shit that is necessary for civilization to survive.
    All kids should spend a summer on a farm and half to slaughter a pig in the spring they fed all summer.
    It is the ONLY WAY we wont all collapse to civilization suicide.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >All kids should spend a summer on a farm and half to slaughter a pig in the spring they fed all summer.
      That pretty much happened to me. Since then, I have never eaten pig meat and rarely eat meat in general, but I will eat poultry. I find it all very disgusting.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Chaff starts commenting

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >retorts with a worthless nothing comment
          Your short-sighted plan would absolutely not work and would in fact backfire. I'm telling you why from personal experience. I also find it extremely cringe when someone on IQfy tries this false bravado. Like who are you kidding, man? So embarrassing.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            with a worthless nothing comment
            I'm saying that you failed the litmus test that separates the men from the gays, the Wheat from the Chaff. That I need to explicitly state what I meant is just further evidence that you're not worth much, let alone engaging with.

            And on that note, good day.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Again, acting like a tough guy on IQfy of all places is the gaygiest thing you could ever do. gaygier than sucking a wiener while also getting rammed up the ass, which I'm sure you also do.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Go slaughter an animal and show us the video then, if you're man enough. You can buy piglets for like 50 bucks

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >That pretty much happened to me. Since then, I have never eaten pig meat
        sorry i guess i should have said the kid should then be forced to continue too eat pork

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Hindsight is 20/20.
    https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hindsight_is_20/20
    https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/it_is_easy_to_be_wise_after_the_event#English
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Nukes were only used because Americans were scared shitless of the USSR establishing a sphere of influence in Japan by force and had to wave their dicks around.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      moronic revisionism. The Truman Doctrine was not a thing until after the War was over

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      You mean the invasion the Americans lobbied hard for and repeatedly queried Stalin in the lead up to make sure he was still going to invade as promised?

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    While I don't think we needed to drop the nukes to win WW2, I think it was for the best we did. The bombs were made and they were going to be used eventually. If we didn't use them then, we might have ended up dropping dozens on Korea or something.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      This is a reasonable argument I think, but the second nuke was definitely unjustified, the fact is Truman simply did not comprehend what had been created because he wasn't briefed on the Manhattan project until a few months before it was dropped, and frankly nobody truly comprehended it until years afterward when the effects had been fully observed. It was a mistake, no dishonor in admitting it. It was war, war is mostly just a long series of calamities, this doesn't justify wartime atrocities but it does leave room for absolution upon repentance

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    There was a coup attempt to prevent the surrender AFTER Nagasaki

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The SU destroyed the kwantung army in manchuria that's the real reason why they surrendered

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >lol frick the league of nations, frick diplomacy! War is God! Might makes Right! I will take what I want with my warrior spirit while you degenerate liberal nations just talk and whine
    >w-wait time out! I quit! W-what about the international order? What about rule of law? I thought I was going to get a conditional surrender hold up stop!

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >liberal nations
      You think that every single white person before the 1960's was backwards and evil. "Nazi" and "Fascist" are just a convenient term.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        You are arguing against a strawman, what you're implying isn't even hinted at in that post. This is the sign of being desperate in the face of truth.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          No, I am not that guy. I'm just replying to you referring to 'da good guys' as liberal nations. You hate every white person before 60's and see them as your enemy. The South was the only place in America where volunteers exceeded the drafted numbers. And you probably call them nazis too.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I'm not that guy, I'm just telling you that you are making shit up to get mad about in a post that holds an opinion that is universally true and held by various different groups of people regardless of political allegiance. It is a complete and undeniable fact that when compared to the literal Empire of Japan, and Nazi Germany, that the United States and Britain are liberal nations.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            To a white man. I'm sure a black man in 1940s Alabama doesn't see much of a difference between Americans and the Nazis

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You're a moron and I am ashamed for having given you attention for so long.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Nice projection you have there. Can't see how it is relevant tot he thread other than you needing to seethe

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Why did they never nuked china as well, again?

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    To be far if Japan was thinking rationally they would have surrendered after Germany did. The fact they didn't is proof enough of their delusions of grandeur.

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    the bomb was dropped on japan purely to have demonstration of it
    there's no way the US who just spent billions of dollars on THE super weapon was going to let an opportunity to use it on live targets pass

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      This is a moronic reddit dork misreading of history. There is mention from US officials of their need to demonstrate that they not only have created a bomb with this level of destruction, but that they have produced multiple ones and can keep producing them should Japan not surrender. Japan was specifically called to surrender by the allies by a specific date or they would be bombed. They refused so they were and when they still refused they were bombed again.

      The "demonstration" was in reaction to them not taking the call to surrender seriously. It was NOT just some sort of weird unethical experiment to "see what happens" or whatever morons make it out to be.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      This is a moronic reddit dork misreading of history. There is mention from US officials of their need to demonstrate that they not only have created a bomb with this level of destruction, but that they have produced multiple ones and can keep producing them should Japan not surrender. Japan was specifically called to surrender by the allies by a specific date or they would be bombed. They refused so they were and when they still refused they were bombed again.

      The "demonstration" was in reaction to them not taking the call to surrender seriously. It was NOT just some sort of weird unethical experiment to "see what happens" or whatever morons make it out to be.

      I feel like both of these are still essentially the same reason.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        and also not mutually exclusive

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The nuance involved shows that they aren't. You're just throwing in the towel and claiming they are because you refuse to think about the situation for longer than it would take to make your homosexual opinion of it any less plainly stupid than it honestly is.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >The nuance
          This is assuming that the people who got the bombs dropped weren't bloodthirsty psychos who were incapable of nuance.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You ran away from arguing this for a reason, and it's because you got BTFO. You have no evidence or actual claims that aren't just plain seething. Here you are defending the actual bloodthirsty psychos in Japan who would have committed an Asian genocide because of your daddy issues or something.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Explain how ending the war makes Americans bloodthirsty?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          rude

  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Yes and the proof is that they didn't surrender after one bomb

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      No, the plan was to drop two bombs from the start because they were testing two different types. One on Tokyo, one on Hiroshima. The Tokyo one got moved to Nagasaki because Henry Stimson was an Antisemite and didn't want the Shinto religion to be annihilated.

  23. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    https://www.unz.com/akarlin/nuclear-altruism/

    >The nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is honestly one of the single most effectively altruistic actions in all of human history.

    >By helping persuade the Japanese to surrender (they were open to doing that with preconditions, but that was hilariously at odds with the military balance by mid-1945), the Americans helped make the world a much better place.

    >(1) Military death estimates for the invasion of Japan ran into the hundreds of thousands, which would have been equivalent to America’s military deaths for the entirety of World War II. The US was under no obligation to sacrifice masses of its troops to spare citizens of a country that had underhandedly initiated war against them.

    >People who are against nuking the Japanese hate Americans.

    >(2) The USSR would have lost tens of thousands of soldiers occupying Hokkaido and perhaps northern Honshu (only to lose said Hokkaido People’s Republic in c.1991 anyway).

    >People who are against nuking the Japanese hate Russians.

    >(3) Japanese troops were still occupying Korea, Vietnam, Indonesia, and large parts of China. Japanese occupation was not nice. A timely Japanese surrender saved many Allied troops and third country civilians.

    >People who are against nuking the Japanese hate Chinese and other East Asians.

    >(4) Previous fire bombings killed more Japanese than the two atomic bombs.

    >So what even makes nukes so revolting to many people? They’re just more efficient at their job.

    >(5) An Allied invasion of the home islands would have killed millions of Japanese civilians, or an order of magnitude more than were killed by the atomic bombs.

    >People who are against nuking the Japanese hate the Japanese.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >People who are against nuking the Japanese hate Russians.

      uhhh, but I hate Russians and am pro-nuking Japan

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >>(1) Military death estimates for the invasion of Japan ran into the hundreds of thousands, which would have been equivalent to America’s military deaths for the entirety of World War II. The US was under no obligation to sacrifice masses of its troops to spare citizens of a country that had underhandedly initiated war against them.

      ...or you just blockade the place and wait till they get hungry, keep bombing military positions and production.

      >(4) Previous fire bombings killed more Japanese than the two atomic bombs.
      mutts having a history of war crimes doesnt make this one any better

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Nuking one city is a horrific war crime!
        >Starving millions to death? Le heckin fine!
        This is why Reddit philosophy is so dangerous, in the pursuit of looking squeaky clean homosexuals like this will unleash untold horrors on the world.

  24. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    yeah

  25. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    No one has ever explained why the US couldn't do a warning shot instead of dropping the bombs on civilians.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The fact that the top Jap leadership STILL didn't want to surrender and it took the emperor's final say on the matter (and even that as long as he was confident his ass would be spared) is a good enough explanation

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        But if the US did a warning shot, then the Japanese would have surrendered.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Got proof of this claim?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            What would you do if you saw a mushroom cloud outside of your kitchen window? You'd surrender, just like the Japanese would have in 1945 if the US had fired a warning shot in the ocean.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Or it would galvanize resistance since it would make people think the Americans are gonna do that to the entire country.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            So then why does it make sense to drop it on a city full of civilians? Surely that would galvanize resistance as well. Except it didn't. It led to unconditional surrender. The same would happen if they detonated the nuke in the middle of the ocean.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            If I punch someone and they get knocked down, that shows I mean business. If I just threaten them with a punch it is more likely they wouldn't be effected and just brush it off.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >civilians
            Leaflets were dropped telling them to evacuate. Why did they choose to stay?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Because they don't speak English and the leaflets were poorly translated. Plus, at that point it was just an empty threat to them. If they detonated the nukes in the middle of the ocean, then the Japanese people would realize we meant business. You know this though, you're just pretending like you don't understand so that your political opinion can be maintained.

            If I punch someone and they get knocked down, that shows I mean business. If I just threaten them with a punch it is more likely they wouldn't be effected and just brush it off.

            Horrible analogy. Punching someone in the face doesn't equal mass genocide.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >it was an empty threat
            They were being bombed from firebombs for years already. This just proves that they would just ignore a warning if given.
            >bad analogy
            What do you think the point of an analogy is?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            No they weren't. They were in both Japanese and English you lying homosexual.

  26. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The USSR should have leveled the entire fricking country and salted the earth before America could establish any more bases in the pacific

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah we know you don't really care about casaulties or destruction, you're just mad Japan fell into America's sphere of influence. You don't have to make it so blatant.

  27. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/atomic-bombings-ian-w-toll

  28. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    why is le nuke bad? fallout? Only real argument imo

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *