[ 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

[tabaqui]

Yeah, no, sorry. They considered, they *tried*, they were *working* on it. We knew it. We decided to kill them, anyway.

[(Anonymous)]

ELEMENTS of the Japanese government did so.

But there was no consensus at the time.

Throughout long conflicts, governments will often think about suing for peace or surrendering. But that hardly means that if the conflict continues because an agreement couldn't be reached that it's somehow "wrong' to continue fighting.

Germany certainly tried to sue for peace with the Allies during WWI but the talks fell apart because no one was getting what they wanted. That hardly meant that Germany was beaten or that the Allies "decided to kill them anyway" -- Germany certainly decided to keep on fighting the war and there were still MASSIVE casualties afterward.

[(Anonymous)]

(da)
I think the considering and knowing part is less relevant than the fact not one, but two bombs were dropped while knowing most victims would be civilians.

[(Anonymous)]

It baffles me how many people are forgetting that these people were just families living their lives and not soldiers.

And that doing it TWICE was okay because "American lives!"

The guy who who was displaying Enola Gay at the museum was almost CRYING at how many American lives this plane saved.

[(Anonymous)]

Because we were at war.

German cities were bombed by the Allies.

America had been conducting extensive firebombing against Japan.

The Japanese DESTROYED Chinese cities and tortured/murdered civilians with nary a care.

So of course civilians died and of course people were proud of saving the lives of their countrymen.

What is so difficult to understand about this?

[(Anonymous)]

Yes, we know, Americans the winners of a war should always be praised for killing civilians in operatives that weren't aimed against other armies because that means THEY SAVED LIVES. By killing civilians. Yes.

In other news, the grass is green.

[(Anonymous)]

War isn't some magic salve that makes the killing of innocents okay.

[(Anonymous)]

what a romantic view of murder, to bring him to tears like that :')

[tabaqui]

Exactly. Bombing military targets, military *units* - that's horrifying but part of war, everyone did it. *Deliberately* bombing civilians - beyond grotesque. And yes, 'everyone' did that, too, but we're the only ones that used nuclear weapons to do it.

[(Anonymous)]

Pretty much this.

All parties in a war commit horrifying acts and some of them aren't really justifiable, not matter how many people try to keep their country as the one in the high moral ground.

[(Anonymous)]

Word. But this anon doesn't really understand the gravity of nuclear weapons. Every time this topic comes around Capslock McGee comes by with the same spiel.

[tabaqui]

Pretty much. And now, if it's the same person, i'm getting the 'omg, you didn't know he was racist as fuck/everybody was racist as fuck/where did you go to schoooooooool!!' crap. Uh, sorry, no, that letter? Would *never* have been shown to us kids in school, and i doubt it's shown to many kids now. Sheesh.

[(Anonymous)]

yea, we don't know what kept people went on wars before they do? wars doesn't happen miraculously. it evolved A BUTTLOTS OF PEOPLE OR PERSONS.

at least it give a perspective on human 'race'.

[(Anonymous)]

This isn't really related, but have you heard of Unit 731?

[(Anonymous)]

You know, I bet if we were working on surrendering on a nation and they bombed us anyway, we wouldn't be so quick to say "Well shucks, were only TRYING, so they had a good excuse to kill us..."

[(Anonymous)]

Fact is they DIDN'T surrender when they had the chance.

They didn't like the terms. The USA wanted an unconditional surrender. Japan didn't want to so they were working on trying to get different terms.

That's nice and all, but that hardly means they would have surrendered without the bombings. Because it's not like they couldn't have before.

[(Anonymous)]

By "they" you mean a handful of officials who held no military power.

A cursory glance at the Wikipedia page would show you that this sentiment was not shared:

"On August 7, a day after Hiroshima was destroyed, Dr. Yoshio Nishina and other atomic physicists arrived at the city, and carefully examined the damage. They then went back to Tokyo and told the cabinet that Hiroshima was indeed destroyed by an atomic bomb. Admiral Soemu Toyoda, the Chief of the Naval General Staff, estimated that no more than one or two additional bombs could be readied, so they decided to endure the remaining attacks, acknowledging "there would be more destruction but the war would go on." American Magic codebreakers intercepted the cabinet's messages."

"The senior leadership of the Japanese Army began preparations to impose martial law on the nation, with the support of Minister of War Korechika Anami, in order to stop anyone attempting to make peace."

Honestly, if you aren't even aware of the disparate factions within the Japanese government during WWII, you aren't really knowledgeable enough to speak as authoritatively about the subject as you seem to be trying to do. There were several, and the one you are referencing was not the one in power. American leadership was aware of this, even if you are not.

I'm not trying to be unduly harsh, but you have considerable emotion invested on a topic you've clearly never studied well. Might I suggest you do?