Japanese Researcher Wants America To “Apologize” For Bombing Them

Mister Terrific

It’s in the name
Joined
May 24, 2022
Messages
5,335
Reputation
1,468
Daps
19,091
Reppin
Michigan
Man y’all nikkas constantly remind me of how retarded yall are. Killing civilians is a war crime no matter how you slice it. Them killing soldiers does not give you the right to:
  • Develop and use the most destructive weapon ever made.
  • Use it on innocent civilians.
Y’all sound like those Zionist fakkits who love to give excuses to kill civilians. So yes, they can demand an apology without nikkas needing to chime in about the US apologizing for slavery n shyt. US needs to be held accountable for all of its crimes, if we don’t allow other countries to challenge our government then the US will never address anything and continue to move throughout the globe like villains.
Japan was just killing soldiers :laff:





Many written reports and testimonies which were collected by the Australian War Crimes Section of the Tokyo tribunal, and investigated by prosecutor William Webb (the tribunal's future Judge-in-Chief), indicate that Japanese personnel committed acts of cannibalism against Allied prisoners of war in many parts of Asia and the Pacific. In many cases, these acts of cannibalism were inspired by ever-increasing Allied attacks on Japanese supply lines, and the death and illness of Japanese personnel which resulted from hunger. According to historian Yuki Tanaka: "cannibalism was often a systematic activity which was conducted by whole squads which were under the command of officers".[170] This frequently involved murder for the purpose of securing bodies. For example, an Indian POW, Havildar Changdi Ram, testified that "[on November 12, 1944] the Kempeitai beheaded [an Allied] pilot. I saw this from behind a tree and watched some of the Japanese cut flesh from his arms, legs, hips, buttocks and carry it off to their quarters ... They cut it [into] small pieces and fried it."[171][172]

In some cases, flesh was cut from living people: another Indian POW, Lance Naik Hatam Ali (later a citizen of Pakistan), testified in New Guinea and stated:

... the Japanese started selecting prisoners and every day one prisoner was taken out and killed and eaten by the soldiers. I personally saw this happen and about 100 prisoners were eaten at this place by the Japanese. The remainder of us were taken to another spot 50 miles [80 km] away where 10 prisoners died of sickness. At this place, the Japanese again started selecting prisoners to eat. Those selected were taken to a hut where their flesh was cut from their bodies while they were alive and they were thrown into a ditch where they later died.[173]
According to another account by Jemadar Abdul Latif of 4/9 Jat Regiment of the Indian Army who was rescued by the Australian Army at the Sepik Bay in 1945:

At the village of Suaid, a Japanese medical officer periodically visited the Indian compound and selected each time the healthiest men. These men were taken away ostensibly for carrying out duties, but they never reappeared.[174]
Perhaps the most senior officer convicted of cannibalism was Lt Gen. Yoshio Tachibana (立花芳夫,Tachibana Yoshio), who with 11 other Japanese personnel was tried in August 1946 in relation to the execution of U.S. Navy airmen, and the cannibalism of at least one of them, during August 1944, on Chichi Jima, in the Bonin Islands. The airmen were beheaded on Tachibana's orders. Because military and international law did not specifically deal with cannibalism, they were tried for murder and "prevention of honorable burial". Tachibana was sentenced to death, and hanged.[175]




Maybe the Japanese should’ve thought of their own people and surrendered instead of engaging in a genocidal war with a superior power :camby:
 

Insensitive

Superstar
Joined
May 21, 2012
Messages
12,126
Reputation
4,713
Daps
40,640
Reppin
NULL
The Japanese during this period were genocidal, mass raping, hyper racsits.

They were unapologetic Nazis who borrowed heavily from European race science.

They were completely and utterly out of control.

While I feel it's terrible that citizens were bombed back to the stone age, I feel we also need to understand
the monstrous atrocities they committed in that period.

Which is saying something because I pretty much cannot ever see myself siding with America during just about any period
they went to war.
 

5n0man

Superstar
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
16,479
Reputation
3,337
Daps
54,115
Reppin
CALI
Y’all sound like those Zionist fakkits who love to give excuses to kill civilians. So yes, they can demand an apology without nikkas needing to chime in about the US apologizing for slavery n shyt. US needs to be held accountable for all of its crimes, if we don’t allow other countries to challenge our government then the US will never address anything and continue to move throughout the globe like villains.
Would you care if an Arab country bombed Israel to stop them from genociding the Palestinians?

Why the fukk would you compare Japan during WW2 to Palestinians today?? Japan were the invaders, they killed 20 million raping and pillaging their way across Asia, and you think they're owed an apology because they had to be hit with 2 nukes to stop?

Japan won't even acknowledge or apologize for their atrocities.
 

ORDER_66

Demon Time coming 2024
Bushed
Joined
Feb 2, 2014
Messages
146,761
Reputation
15,789
Daps
585,501
Reppin
Queens,NY
Would you care if an Arab country bombed Israel to stop them from genociding the Palestinians?

1Vv.gif

that's a good question :mjgrin:
 

5n0man

Superstar
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
16,479
Reputation
3,337
Daps
54,115
Reppin
CALI
Japan hasn't hurt anyone in close to a century now..we cannot say the same for America, Europe, and China..

Argentina wiped out its Black population..have you ever heard a peep from them? :ohhh:

Belgium killed 15 million Congolese..when did they ever acknowledge their crimes???:comeon:
Who cares if it's been 70 years since Japan massacred 20 million people, why the fukk do they deserve an apology for the response to their atrocities?
 

Mister Terrific

It’s in the name
Joined
May 24, 2022
Messages
5,335
Reputation
1,468
Daps
19,091
Reppin
Michigan
Even the racist ass bloodthirsty general knew the shyt was wrong :stopitslime:
Except the Soviets were playing the Japanese in order to get them to drop their guard so they could invade Manchuria and plan an invasion of mainland japan


The Soviets had agreed with the allies at Yalta that Japans surrender would be Unconditional


On 30 June, Tōgō told Naotake Satō, Japan's ambassador in Moscow, to try to establish "firm and lasting relations of friendship." Satō was to discuss the status of Manchuria and "any matter the Russians would like to bring up."[59] Well aware of the overall situation and cognizant of their promises to the Allies, the Soviets responded with delaying tactics to encourage the Japanese without promising anything. Satō finally met with Soviet Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov on 11 July, but without result. On 12 July, Tōgō directed Satō to tell the Soviets that:

His Majesty the Emperor, mindful of the fact that the present war daily brings greater evil and sacrifice upon the peoples of all the belligerent powers, desires from his heart that it may be quickly terminated. But so long as England and the United States insist upon unconditional surrender, the Japanese Empire has no alternative but to fight on with all its strength for the honor and existence of the Motherland.[60]
The Emperor proposed sending Prince Konoe as a special envoy, although he would be unable to reach Moscow before the Potsdam Conference.

Satō advised Tōgō that in reality, "unconditional surrender or terms closely equivalent thereto" was all that Japan could expect. Moreover, in response to Molotov's requests for specific proposals, Satō suggested that Tōgō's messages were not "clear about the views of the Government and the Military with regard to the termination of the war," thus questioning whether Tōgō's initiative was supported by the key elements of Japan's power structure.[61]

On 17 July, Tōgō responded:

Although the directing powers, and the government as well, are convinced that our war strength still can deliver considerable blows to the enemy, we are unable to feel absolutely secure peace of mind ... Please bear particularly in mind, however, that we are not seeking the Russians' mediation for anything like an unconditional surrender.[62]
In reply, Satō clarified:

It goes without saying that in my earlier message calling for unconditional surrender or closely equivalent terms, I made an exception of the question of preserving [the imperial family].[63]
On 21 July, speaking in the name of the cabinet, Tōgō repeated:

With regard to unconditional surrender we are unable to consent to it under any circumstances whatever. ... It is in order to avoid such a state of affairs that we are seeking a peace, ... through the good offices of Russia. ... it would also be disadvantageous and impossible, from the standpoint of foreign and domestic considerations, to make an immediate declaration of specific terms.[64]
Soviet intentions


Main article: Soviet–Japanese War
Security concerns dominated Soviet decisions concerning the Far East.[66] Chief among these was gaining unrestricted access to the Pacific Ocean. The year-round ice-free areas of the Soviet Pacific coastline—Vladivostok in particular—could be blockaded by air and sea from Sakhalin island and the Kurile Islands. Acquiring these territories, thus guaranteeing free access to the Soya Strait, was their primary objective.[67] Secondary objectives were leases for the Chinese Eastern Railway, Southern Manchuria Railway, Dairen, and Port Arthur.[68]

To this end, Stalin and Molotov strung out the negotiations with the Japanese, giving them false hope of a Soviet-mediated peace.[69] At the same time, in their dealings with the United States and Britain, the Soviets insisted on strict adherence to the Cairo Declaration, re-affirmed at the Yalta Conference, that the Allies would not accept separate or conditional peace with Japan. The Japanese would have to surrender unconditionally to all the Allies. To prolong the war, the Soviets opposed any attempt to weaken this requirement.[69] This would give the Soviets time to complete the transfer of their troops from the Western Front to the Far East, and conquer Manchuria, Inner Mongolia, northern Korea, South Sakhalin, the Kuriles, and possibly Hokkaidō[70] (starting with a landing at Rumoi).[71]


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan#:~:text=The%20surrender%20of%20the%20Empire,war's%20hostilities%20to%20a%20close.



Btw the Soviets captured 600,000-700,000 japanese in China after the war. 300,000 were killed in labor camps.

Stalin didn’t give a fukk about Japan :beli:
 

rabbid

Superstar
Joined
Mar 11, 2022
Messages
6,670
Reputation
1,446
Daps
23,167
We can acknowledge that the bombs were war crimes, but people also need to explain what they what have done in the situation. There was no rehabilitating Japan, in fact the Demilitarization set place after surrender was so strict because it was all but assumed Japan's leadership would continue to try war atrocities if given the chance. They had to be denutted. How you let innocents get bombed to shyt and still think there's a chance.

The only angle is maybe, maybe something less violent and more focused could have been done, but Japan at this point was ready to kill themselves. Its like if jihad promised to invade America and blow themselves up at every major military base. Its like dawg we gotta unleash the flutes on a level that is unprecedented cause y'all really think its still a fair fight.

The Manhattan Project was developed in secrecy. If japan had found out they likely would have underestimated or disregarded it. Shock and Awe was an essential part of it. So idk I'm not really sure what else could have been done without even more major casualities for the US. The Japanese really thought they had an upper hand at all times. The bombs ensured that they would not rise again. The whole "stall them out and continue bombing runs" doesn't really ensure their militaristic reign ends. Thats the type of thinking that led to the rise of Nazis.
 

the elastic

livin' outside of the matrix
Supporter
Joined
Mar 11, 2022
Messages
17,595
Reputation
7,310
Daps
79,008
Reppin
the bay/norcal
At the end of the day, this shyt is between WHITE America and the Japanese.

We had little to nothing to do with the nukes.

Japanese never called me no nikka :mjpls:
 

Professor Emeritus

Veteran
Poster of the Year
Supporter
Joined
Jan 5, 2015
Messages
51,330
Reputation
19,666
Daps
203,884
Reppin
the ether
Apologize for what? Ending this?



That's some sanctimonious bullshyt when the USA actually PARDONED all of the scientists in Unit 731 so they could get the results of their research and find out what they did.

Anyone who tries to defend US actions by claiming they were righteous or meant to end atrocities is full of shyt. The USA was involved in a power play and didn't give two shyts about anyone who died in atrocities during WW2. That's not to say that Japan didn't act in many evil ways, but the USA literally didn't care about that unless its own power was affected.
 

Professor Emeritus

Veteran
Poster of the Year
Supporter
Joined
Jan 5, 2015
Messages
51,330
Reputation
19,666
Daps
203,884
Reppin
the ether
We can acknowledge that the bombs were war crimes, but people also need to explain what they what have done in the situation.

Nearly all of our own military leaders and strategists were already saying that Japan was ready to surrender, we had seen the encrypted cables to prove it, and neither the bomb nor an invasion was necessary. They were already shook that Russia had entered the war against them, knew they could survive neither a siege nor a Russian invasion, and preferred to surrender to the Americans rather than the Russians (who unlike the Americans would keep any land they took).

This isn't just my opinion. This was the opinion of our own military leaders and strategists both BEFORE and AFTER the bomb was dropped. Truman made the decision to drop the bomb all the way back in April, irrespective of the military situation, of his own accord without consulting military or intelligence experts.




There was no rehabilitating Japan

The same sort of racist bullshyt that people say about every enemy. Japan was no worse than plenty of White nations had been.



Japan at this point was ready to kill themselves. Its like if jihad promised to invade America and blow themselves up at every major military base. Its like dawg we gotta unleash the flutes on a level that is unprecedented cause y'all really think its still a fair fight.

You're literally just regurgitating 1940s propaganda. Every nation has people who "don't want to give up", but the Japanese had already been discussing surrender for months beforehand and only needed assurances that the USA wasn't going to keep any land and the emperor would remain on the thrown (both of which the USA conceded to in the end anyway). America's refusal to give those assurances is the only reason the war lasted as long as it did.



The Manhattan Project was developed in secrecy. If japan had found out they likely would have underestimated or disregarded it. Shock and Awe was an essential part of it. So idk I'm not really sure what else could have been done without even more major casualities for the US.

1. Simply give the assurances they were asking for
2. Simple naval blockade, considering Japan's air/sea power were already devastated and they couldn't hurt anyone anymore.
3. Just wait for the Russians to keep advancing, since the Japanese were even more shook of losing to them and Russians don't even care about casualties like that.




The bombs ensured that they would not rise again.

The bombs had nothing to do with it other than provide a convenient excuse.
 

Professor Emeritus

Veteran
Poster of the Year
Supporter
Joined
Jan 5, 2015
Messages
51,330
Reputation
19,666
Daps
203,884
Reppin
the ether
For those who have spent their lives being fed all the pro-American propaganda that the "bombs were necessary to end the war", there are some important facts that our government didn't want you to know.


1. Truman made the decision to use the bombs almost immediately upon learning that we had them. FDR had never approved using the bombs against the Japanese and some of his confidants don't believe he would have. Yet Truman agreed to immediately, months before they were ready, without even knowing what the war situation would be when they were ready and without consulting most of the pertinent military leaders or intelligence experts in the region.

2. When they decided to use the bombs, their highest priority was making sure the dropping of bombs was a useful experiment. They wanted to hit as untouched an area as possible and kill as many civilians as possible, so they could both measure and demonstrate the bombs' full impact. That was why when they picked the targets in May 1945, they purposely picked cities that were relatively untouched and ordered all bombing of those cities stopped until the bombs were reading (proving that bombing the cities was not considered militarily significant).

3. Oppenheimer and many others were aghast at the bombing of Nagasaki less than 3 days after the bombing of Hiroshima, before any Japanese leaders had even visited the site or gotten the chance to fully discuss the response in council. In fact, the Japanese leadership was meeting together and discussing the possibility of surrender WHEN the second bomb was dropped. Why did the USA destroy another city and kill 60,000 more civilians without even waiting to see what the response to the first bomb would be? Because they had already manufactured both a uranium bomb and a plutonium bomb, using two very different firing mechanisms, and planned from the beginning to test out both of them.


By August 1945, the dropping of the bombs wasn't a military necessity, and American leadership knew that. It was a test of a new technology and a message to Russia and the rest of the world that the USA would be on top in the post-war reality.

If you don't believe me, then why not talk to people who know a LOT more about it than you or I do:





"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace before the atomic age was announced to the world with the destruction of Hiroshima and before the Russian entry into the war....The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military standpoint, in the defeat of Japan."

- Fleet Admiral Chester Nimitz, Commander in Chief U.S. Pacific Fleet



"The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment. . . . It was a mistake to ever drop it. . . . [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it. . . . It killed a lot of Japs, but the Japs had put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before."

- Admiral William F. Halsey Jr., Commander U.S. Third Fleet



"I didn't like the atom bomb or any part of it."

- Fleet Admiral Ernest J. King, Commander in Chief, U.S. Fleet and Chief of Naval Operations



"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.

- Fleet Admiral William Leahy, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff



"The Japanese position was hopeless even before the first atomic bomb fell, because the Japanese had lost control of their own air....it always appeared to us that, atomic bomb or no atomic bomb, the Japanese were already on the verge of collapse."

- General Henry H. "Hap" Arnold, Commanding General of U.S. Army Air Forces



"Russia's entry into the Japanese war was the decisive factor in speeding its end and would have been so even if no atomic bombs had been dropped."

- General Claire Chennault, Army Air Forces Commander in China



"On the other hand if they knew or were told that no invasion would take place [and] that bombing would continue until the surrender, why I think the surrender would have taken place just about the same time."

General Carl Spaatz, Commander of U.S. Strategic Air Forces in the Pacific



"MacArthur's views about the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were starkly different from what the general public supposed." He continues, "When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor."

- General Douglas MacArthur, Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers (Pacific)



"I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude..."

- General Dwight Eisenhower, Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers (Europe)



"...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."

- former President Dwight Eisenhower, reflecting after his presidency
 
Last edited:

rabbid

Superstar
Joined
Mar 11, 2022
Messages
6,670
Reputation
1,446
Daps
23,167
You doing the most so I'll read your responses but im also not gonna reply to you. I'm not going back and forth with a dude thats amped the fukk up.
 

Professor Emeritus

Veteran
Poster of the Year
Supporter
Joined
Jan 5, 2015
Messages
51,330
Reputation
19,666
Daps
203,884
Reppin
the ether
You doing the most so I'll read your responses but im also not gonna reply to you. I'm not going back and forth with a dude thats amped the fukk up.


You justified horrific war crimes that killed hundreds of thousands of civilians, I responded with a logic and fact based rebuttal, and all you offer in response is an ad hominem.

This is why I don't like propagandists.
 
Top