[ SECRET POST #3181 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3181 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09. [WARNING for rape]



__________________________________________________



10.



__________________________________________________



11.











Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 070 secrets from Secret Submission Post #455.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

WHITE IS........

Dropping the bomb on the Japanese but not on the Germans.

[(Anonymous)]

Actually that's because the Germans had already surrendered and had been losing for a long time previously, while the Japanese were still fighting and getting lots of people killed before the US finally decided to bust out the trump card. And also Germany is land-locked and in a very different strategic position than Japan.

Not that that makes the bombing any better, but racism wasn't the reasoning, it was situational.

[(Anonymous)]

Didn't Japan surrender after the first bomb, but they dropped the second one anyway?

[(Anonymous)]

No.

[(Anonymous)]

Huh? No.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Events_of_August_7.E2.80.939

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan

[(Anonymous)]

Most emphatically no.

Depending on who you ask, they didn't even surrender after the second bomb. Some historians think that the IJA viewed the loss of a couple hundred civilians as no big deal, and were more concerned about the Soviets entering the war which they were not equipped to deal with and would almost certainly result in the death of the Emperor.

[(Anonymous)]

Also, Japan was absolutely willing to fight to the death as a nation. I am not in any way excusing the USA's use of the bomb (because, no), but if Japan had kept fighting the war, given the extant beliefs and propaganda available to the USA at the time, Japan would have obliterated itself, and many many many many more Americans/Europeans/others, over a much longer period of time. It was a terrible solution, and it launched the nuclear age (for better and for worse), but that's it. It happened.

Do not mistake me. The USA absolutely had a choice not to drop either Fat Man OR Little Boy. But if they hadn't, the war could have potentially had many more casualties, and never really come to a satisfactory end. Either outcome was horrific, but the USA picked what they THOUGHT would be the most short-term horrific solution; it's only in long hindsight that we've seen its long-term horrific effects, since no one had any clue about the effects of radiation poisoning etc., because they'd never created anything like this before.

TL;DR: Nukes are bad, and it happened for not-particularly-good reasons. There also weren't any good reasons/options at all.

da

[(Anonymous)]

Also, Japan was absolutely willing to fight to the death as a nation

You know what "propaganda" means, right? It's still propaganda even if it's used mostly toward what is supposed to be your own countrymen.

Or in other words - That's not what the goverments records on both side say.

What really was happening was much more complicated then that.

[(Anonymous)]

a. The Germans had already surrendered.

b. Dropping an a-bomb in the center of Europe had a far likelier chance of doing damage to surrounding allied countries, as opposed to the relatively more contained Japanese Islands.

c. Russia needed to know America had that kind of weaponry at its disposal.

d. America's chief enemy in WW2 was Japan. They attacked Pearl Harbor, they brought us into the war. We suffered hideous losses to the Japanese that are comparable to what the Nazis took out of the Russians. If the war, for America, had been about Germany only, we would have gotten in there sooner and probably ended the war years earlier by supplying reinforcements. You do know we only really got in there in '43, yes?

[(Anonymous)]

'42 actually

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT

The European allies suffered devastating defeats in the few years they were on their own in any case. I'm not saying America won the war for Europe (although I will happily say we won it for WW1), but we supplied desperately needed aid, and an earlier entrance into the European Theater would very likely have ended the war sooner.

To add to my above post:

e. THERE WAS NO A-BOMB WHEN GERMANY SURRENDERED. Testing only started a month or so later.

[(Anonymous)]

The Japanese had already surrendered as well...

[(Anonymous)]

No they hadn't, don't be so fucking ignorant.

[(Anonymous)]

No. They so, so hadn't. They were so far from surrendering that even shortly before the bombs, when they knew they were going to be invaded in some way, they were preparing for an all-out defense. They had absolutely no intention of surrendering any time soon if it hadn't been for the bombs.

[(Anonymous)]

No. In fact, the whole reason for the bombs is that the Japanese still refused to surrender even when they really, really, really should have given their position.

[tabaqui]

They hadn't surrendered, but they *had* considered it, but the US demands were too much for them, because they allowed no part of what Japan wanted. A 'totally capitulate to everything we say' kind of surrender, which the Emperor couldn't agree to because his military wouldn't.

But Japan was trying to end the war when we bombed them, and Russian, in particular, knew it, and was blocking them.

[(Anonymous)]

We suffered hideous losses to the Japanese that are comparable to what the Nazis took out of the Russians.

Did you just

compare the 27,000,000 Soviet deaths, the majority of which were civilians (10,922,000 soldier deaths) which was a good chunk of each Soviet country's total population, to the 400,000 soldier US deaths, which was 0.32% to the US population?

[(Anonymous)]

Only speaking about the army, yes. Russia wouldn't have lost nearly so many soldiers if their strategy hadn't been "choke them out with our dead bodies", and I attribute more deaths on the Russian side to the Russians than to the Nazis.

(And I'm invoking N-Word privileges here, I am Russian.)

[(Anonymous)]

JAPANESE IS...

Declaring war on a country with 100 times the firepower.

[(Anonymous)]

JAPANESE IS...

Rape of Nanking.

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, but they firebombed the SHIT out of Germany and flattened tons of the cities. I mean it wasn't atomic, but it was pretty horrible.
Sorry it wasn't horrible enough for you?

[(Anonymous)]

seconded. I'm from one of those cities, and what happened here was an atrocity without doubt. 75% of the tens of thousands of victims were women and children (and that's only because many children were already evacuated to the countryside) and there was nothing of note military or industry-wise to justify even the choice as a target except for making an example by proving superiority over the airspace.
Just because it's not OMG atomic it's no less horrible.

[ariakas]

Yeaaaaaaaaaaaah. I'm not really sure what the people arguing above learned about history, because it most definitively was jack shit all about military history.

"Military/industrial targets" was the polite lie military brass told the public about aerial bombardment. To "terrorize and demoralize" the enemy by targeting, specifically, civilian centers was the USAF - and RAF - MO since World War I.

Yes, that has changed now. But in WWII, it hadn't. The US did it, the UK did (see: Dresden, tens of thousands of civilian deaths, no military targets), Japan did it in China, etc.

It's war. It's shitty. And every side committed war crimes. Have whatever opinion you wish regarding the strategic value of the nuclear attacks on Nagasaki and Hiroshima (for the record, there was a major military base in Hiroshima, a fact that seems to have gone unnoticed above, unlike Dresden) - there are historians and military experts who hold both views - but acting like there's something Extra Super Double Plus Bad about using nuclear weapons when more people died in the firebombing of Tokyo (the overwhelming majority of which were also civilians) yet this is let pass with nary a whimper, and the accusations of racism when this was carried out on the Germans to a similar degree.... kind of makes my head spin.

[(Anonymous)]

ayrt

WWII was a horrible, horrible war. And yeah, I always wonder why people ignore the fact that at least there was an actual big military base in Hiroshima. Like you say, people seem to ignore the indiscriminate bombing of civilians that went on in Europe (white people don't matter or something, idk).

In general I am of the opinion that while there is a lot of horror to atomic weaponry, it's not really the worst that humanity has come up with, sad to say. How do you quantify the death of somebody killed in an atomic blast vs. somebody napalmed to death vs. somebody hit with chemical weaponry?

It's not new that people would rather spout rhetoric based on emotions rather than logic or facts, though. And revisionist history seems to be on the rise across the board, lately.

[ariakas]

Jesus shit it's like nobody involved in this debate has even so much as read the Wikipedia page on the atomic bombings.

11/10, masterful success troll anon.