Quote:
Originally Posted by itsmeeeeeee
actually the A bombs WERE'NT necessary. and in a lot of ways, it's use had nothing to do with japan. the japanese were already on their knees and on the verge of surrender thanks to our firebombing of their cities. and it was used not to stop the war, but to demonstrate the weapon. one publicized test in an unpopulated area would have been sufficient to deter any nation from messing with us. we didn't have to kill millions of people.
the fire bombing of japan was also morally reprehensible.
if it was wrong for the germans to bomb european cities, why was it not just as wrong to completely destroy japan's?
if we had NOT won that war, we most certainly would have been prosecuted for war crimes against humanity.
i can just HEAR the anti-american responses i'll get from saying these things. but the truth is, we rounded up japanese americans and held them in prison camps for no reason. we mass murdered innocent millions and millions of innocent CITIZENS against the geneva convention.
|
The Japaneese Military did not want to surrender after the FIRST atomic bomb.
That's why 2 were dropped. They were still for the defense of the Islands after the 2nd.
Only the emperor could overule the Councils.
Look at some photos of the citizens preparing to defend themselves from the invasion.
They are rag tag militias with old women and young kids armes with pitchforks and shovels.
You are familiar with the
Shinto philosophy?
All glory to the emperor? All self dedication to Japan?
It's estimated it would have cost over 1.000,000 lives on both sides to invade Japan.
So the bombs SAVED lives. and Gave Japan the ultimatum it needed to surrender.
The internment of Japaneese citizens here was more controversial.
It was a bad policy. But there were Geman spies, and Japaneese spies among us.
We were pretty good at breaking up the spy rings, so he internment of Japanese US citizens was un necessary, and a bad policy.
Given the fact we were total war against Japan; it might be understandable. And it's EZ to criticize looking back.
But no-one really tries to defend that policy now.