Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

The use of the bomb was not only to prevent a possible soviet invasion of Japan but mainly to prevent a further territorial march of the red army in the West. I really believe that this was the main reason for the using of the bomb. There is a relevant fact that seems to be forgotten by the ones who defend that the using of the bomb was just to ensure a quickly end of the war:

Why were dropped two bombs when one was enough to force a japanese surrender?

The only possible reason for this double bombing was to ensure that both the uranium - based bomb (used on Hiroshima) and the plutonium – based design (used on Nagasaki) would function under combat conditions, and that the Soviets would receive an object lesson in their efficacy and, equally important to Truman and Churchill, the will of the Americans to use them in combat. Simple as that.

Japan already had the shit bombed out of them. iirc Tokyo more or less in ashes from constant fire bombings.

Carius wrote:

The Soviet Pacific Fleet didn't have naval forces needed for an invasion of Japan.

This isn't really my sharpest area in WWII history but the USSR rolled over Japanese mainland territory iirc. They also took Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands.

That's the bourgeois in a nutshell:

You whack a few reactionaries and bourgeois, they'll never shut up about how evil you are.

They nuke a few hundred thousand civilians and they expect us to pretend they did the Right Thing.

Screw that double standard.

Absolutely not. Anyone who tries to justify this act is siding with American Imperialism

Quote:

yes. you don't talk to fascists, you kill fascists.

Fuсking hell. Everybody knows how every single Japanese ( like the rabid fascist Sadako Sasaki) deserved to die via the bright Cherenkov light and unquenchable fires provided by the American Imperialist (It wasn't like America was no better than Japan) .

No, i don't support the bombings.

Quote:

It wasn't like America was no better than Japan

Yeah it was.
America fought against fascism, while Japan fought for fascim.

Bullshit. America was at war with Nazism not fascism. They were all to happy to support Franco, Kaing Kai-shek, Suharto, etc. Japan committed genocide against the Chinese but just like in Europe this had nothing to do with American involvement. If Japan had played its cards right it just might have gotten us to back their Occupations. Japan's racism was no different from what was being pursued domestically in America against negroes and amerindians.

Quote:

They were all to happy to support Franco, Kaing Kai-shek, Suharto, etc.

Yes and they fought Mussolini?
Post-WW2 is a completely different story. Besides, Mao and Chaing were in a united front FFS.

Quote:

Japan committed genocide against the Chinese but just like in Europe this had nothing to do with American involvement.

America actually helped the Chinese a lot with supplies and other material.

Quote:

Japan's racism was no different from what was being pursued domestically in America against negroes and amerindians.

Yes, i'm sure Black neighbourhoods or Indian Reservates were being destroyed a la Nanjing 1937 or bombarded with plague-fleas (see Unit 731) in the 40s.

Loz wrote:

Yes and they fought Mussolini?

Only because they were in the Nazi camp. And only because the nazis didn't play ball and just attack commies.

Loz wrote:

Post-WW2 is a completely different story

No it's the exact same story just with different propaganda.

Loz wrote:

Besides, Mao and Chaing were in a united front FFS.

A united front wherein Chiang attacked communists as much as the Japanese. There was a reason Mao broke the United Front and that's because you cannot work with fascists.

Loz wrote:

America actually helped the Chinese a lot with supplies and other material.

Let me get this straight. You're claiming they helped the chinese for any reason other than it hurt Japan? I can't believe you'd be so naive.

Loz wrote:

Yes, i'm sure Black neighbourhoods or Indian Reservates were being destroyed a la Nanjing 1937 or bombarded with plague-fleas (see Unit 731) in the 40s.

With Indians we'd already done most of the killing by WW2 so at that point we were just engaged in destroying their culture, languages, and taking their children away from them. And we were just lynching negroes right and left for quietly at our white womens. But no loz you're right this is insignificant bullshit incomparable to the genocides that were based on OUR tactics. Get your head out of your ass and stop insulting the victims of American racism.

Quote:

Only because they were in the Nazi camp.

Obviously.

Quote:

No it's the exact same story just with different propaganda.

I don't see how it is.

Quote:

A united front wherein Chiang attacked communists as much as the Japanese.

Still, it had a purpose for some time.

Quote:

You're claiming they helped the chinese for any reason other than it hurt Japan?

The democratic world obviously didn't want to see a fascist China.

Quote:

With Indians we'd already done most of the killing by WW2 so at that point we were just engaged in destroying their culture, languages, and taking their children away from them. And we were just lynching negroes right and left for quietly at our white womens. But no loz you're right this is insignificant bullshit incomparable to the genocides that were based on OUR tactics. Get your head out of your ass and stop insulting the victims of American racism.

You're comparing more-less random acts of lynching to mass and planned extreminations and torture that killed millions of Chinese civilians?

Loz wrote:

I don't see how it is.

How is it different? The sole reason for America being against Nazism was the Nazi's aggressive actions against US and Britain. Anti-fascism was never the goal of the US, rather they intended to curb Soviet territorial/social gains.

Loz wrote:

Still, it had a purpose for some time.

Which doesn't change the fact that Chaing was a fascist with explicit America support.

Loz wrote:

The democratic world obviously didn't want to see a fascist China.

America was more than happy to have a fascist China so long as it was loyal to us. Japanese-Occupied China cannot he considered loyal to America and only a barrier to our imperial interests in Asia. We've been working East Asia since the Civil War we certainly weren't going to let a bunch of uppity Japs cut us off. I don't know why you're idealizing America's involvement in WW2.

Loz wrote:

You're comparing more-less random acts of lynching to mass and planned extreminations and torture that killed millions of Chinese civilians?

I'm comparing the intensely racist character of 40's America with 40's Japan. The only reason we didn't have death camps is because we needed the blacks to work and because the White Man's power was so assured that a tiny black population isn't worth wasting the money on killing. The Chinese were a far more populous threat to Nippon supremacy, hence the more brutal tactics in bringing them under heel. Oh and that while the event of lynching may have been "random" in that you could not say where or when it would happen next but that they happened daily across the US. I'm not playing down Chinese pain but fighting against your bullshit belittling of the intense racist policies of the US.

I'm also comparing the Amerindian extermination to the Chinese death camps. Wherein our genocide is clearly the more destructive one in that we succeeded while the Chinese are now damn near the most powerful country in the world.

Quote:

. I'm not playing down Chinese pain but fighting against your bullshit belittling of the intense racist policies of the US.

How many Blacks were lynched from 1882 to 1968? Less than 4 thousand, according to the Tuskegee Institute.
Now compare that to the Japanese crimes against Chinese civilians which took perhaps as much at 15 million lives and you'll see just who's bullshitting and "belittling" who here.

How long was Japanese occupation of China? Less than ten years? You're comparing a century of terror to a decade? Interesting. Crimes against humanity are not counted with bodies but with the effect to the attacked people. Comparing the cases, a terrorized people who are still murdered for their race today versus a people who lost 10% of its population and is now a superpower that easily overshadows its would-be conquerors, it becomes clear who the greater criminal is. You're being emotional loz, not scientific.

Also great job sidestepping the rest of that post.

Quote:

Comparing the cases, a terrorized people who are still murdered for their race today versus a people who lost 10% of its population and is now a superpower that easily overshadows its would-be conquerors, it becomes clear who the greater criminal is

Eh? What does this have to do with anything? The Jews lost a good 30% of their own in WW2 and yet Israel managed to become a regional superpower in the Middle East...

Quote:

You're being emotional loz, not scientific.

Yeah, i'm being emotional and not scientific... and you claim that i'm downplaying the suffering of Blacks in the US because i don't think that 4000 lynchings were somehow "more horrible" than a genocide of 15 million. Stay classy.

So one person dead in the US is worth ten thousand dead foreigners? That's terrible reasoning.

Don't be a jackass LPC. ffs

loz wrote:

Eh? What does this have to do with anything? The Jews lost a good 30% of their own in WW2 and yet Israel managed to become a regional superpower in the Middle East...

Yes but Israel didn't build that, the West bought it. Jews still clearly carry intense scars from the holocaust although clearly not as bad as the scars on Amerindians and American blacks. (although with te latter that has a lot to do with the continued subjugation of their communities). When the Chinese are just a scattered, history-less, people whose only homes are surrounded by predatory Japanese businessmen we'll talk about a comparison to the Amerindian genocide.

loz wrote:

Yeah, i'm being emotional and not scientific.

You are, your position on America in WW2 alone proves this. Not to mention that you apparently gauge crimes throuh body count. Like how eastern European victims of the holocaust aren't as muchl victims because more Jews died.

loz wrote:

.. and you claim that i'm downplaying the suffering of Blacks in the US because i don't think that 4000 lynchings were somehow "more horrible" than a genocide of 15 million. Stay classy.

Putting words in my mouth is stupid loz. But by all means react away, instead of realize that this argument started over your downplaying of American racism in the first place.

Quote:

Yes but Israel didn't build that, the West bought it.

Nope. Israel got very little aid in 1948, and not from the West but from the East. Israel didn't get that cozy with the US until after 1967.

Quote:

Jews still clearly carry intense scars from the holocaust although clearly not as bad as the scars on Amerindians and American blacks.

And how do you know this, pray tell?

Quote:

When the Chinese are just a scattered, history-less, people whose only homes are surrounded by predatory Japanese businessmen we'll talk about a comparison to the Amerindian genocide.

How far back do you want to go? Most European nations were created by what today can be called "genocide", centuries ago.
What's your point?

Quote:

Like how eastern European victims of the holocaust aren't as muchl victims because more Jews died.

False. 6 million Jews died in the Holocaust while the USSR alone (not to mention Poland and so on...) lost at least 10 million civilians.

Quote:

But by all means react away, instead of realize that this argument started over your downplaying of American racism in the first place.

If i'm "downplaying" American racism by refusing to agree that 4000 lynchings were "more horrible" than what the Japanese did in China, then so be it.

Loz wrote:

Nope. Israel got very little aid in 1948, and not from the West but from the East. Israel didn't get that cozy with the US until after 1967.

The US was cozying up to Israel all throughout the 50's just like every other strategically located nation even though they were suspicisous of the kibbutz and other socialist tendencies.

Loz wrote:

And how do you know this, pray tell?

It shows in Zionist rhetoric. They view gentiles as dangerous "men" who are just waiting for the chance to revert back to pogroms. Even us Americans if you listen to more extreme zionists. That's their entire justification for nationhood, that otherwise wherever they went we'd kill them. It's like inverse antisemitism.

Loz wrote:

How far back do you want to go? Most European nations were created by what today can be called "genocide", centuries ago.
What's your point?

Ah so now we reveal the crux of the issue. Nazi Germany was only wrong in their genocide because they failed to succeed.

Loz wrote:

False. 6 million Jews died in the Holocaust while the USSR alone (not to mention Poland and so on...) lost at least 10 million civilians.

Ah so it's the Jews who are the lesser victims then?

Loz wrote:

If i'm "downplaying" American racism by refusing to agree that 4000 lynchings were "more horrible" than what the Japanese did in China, then so be it.

No you were downplaying American racism by claiming they had any moral superiority in WW2 or that our interests were anything other than out-and-out imperialism.

Quote:

The US was cozying up to Israel all throughout the 50's just like every other strategically located nation even though they were suspicisous of the kibbutz and other socialist tendencies.

The Arab states got more aid and better hardware from the USSR.

Quote:

Ah so it's the Jews who are the lesser victims then?

No,i didn't say that. I just refuted your false claim about the number of victims. The Jews obviously lost more in relative population size.

Quote:

No you were downplaying American racism by claiming they had any moral superiority in WW2 or that our interests were anything other than out-and-out imperialism.

Yeah they had moral superiority. The Allies fought together against fascism which was the biggest evil.

Loz wrote:

The Arab states got more aid and better hardware from the USSR.

They didn't lose because of poor technology or lack of funds but because they cut deals with Israel that shit all over the Palestinians. Egypt and Syria in particular.

Loz wrote:

No,i didn't say that. I just refuted your false claim about the number of victims. The Jews obviously lost more in relative population size.

Ah so now relativity comes into body counts. So what's the relative percentage of Chinese killings to Negro killings? I don't really care what the answer is but I can't believe you would continue to minimize the experience of blacks in America by claiming that Japanese crimes are worse. I never said the black American situation was worse than the Chinese situation, I only mentioned it to expose American hypocrisy about WW2, because to compare crimes like that inherently minimizes the entire thing.

Loz wrote:

Yeah they had moral superiority. The Allies fought together against fascism which was the biggest evil.

The only side in WW2 with any moral superiority was the USSR. The Westerners all had their hands in nazism from the beginning (which is what made Molotov-Ribbentrop a necessary reality), at least politically and it was only the Nazis intractability that led to America and Britain actually allying with Stalin (who they'd supported the nazis against). The only way I can see you giving any credit to the Western Allies is to disrespectfully give them credit for the young men who actually killed nazis. These Frag spent the 50's spending those men's courage against communists. How you could call any of this moral superiority is beyond me.

Quote:

They didn't lose because of poor technology or lack of funds but because they cut deals with Israel that shit all over the Palestinians. Egypt and Syria in particular.

They got their asses kicked pretty seriously on more than one occasion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valley_of_Tears

Quote:

Ah so now relativity comes into body counts.

6 million vs cca 18 million and 4000 vs ccca 15 million. Enough said.

Quote:

The only side in WW2 with any moral superiority was the USSR.

All the Allied forces contributed greatly to the defeat of fascism. The USSR sacrificed the most, but the UK and America clearly had "moral superiority" against the Axis in the eyes of the world .