What the United States did to the Japanese was worse just as bad as hitler did to Jews

CASHAPP

Superstar
Supporter
Joined
Aug 12, 2012
Messages
26,405
Reputation
-2,484
Daps
48,134
They fukked up Tokyo pretty bad too. White phosphorus, napalm, everything. That gets forgotten because of the two A-bombs. But the firebombing of Tokyo was the most destructive conventional air bombing of a civilian area in history.

It's funny, I remember my school teachers saying it was the more humane choice because a ground invasion would've killed more. Got older, did my own research and found out that was all bullshyt. Japan was already ready to surrender. Russia was about to move in and it was a wrap for them. It was totally unnecessary and done just to project power.

I knew someone in here would bring this up. This is a myth that needs to stop. Even from firsthand there is a big glaring elephant in the room that makes this sketchy. If they were "ready to surrender", wouldn't they have done it after the bombing of Hiroshima? There were 3 days between the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and the one dropped on Nagasaki.
 

theworldismine13

God Emperor of SOHH
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
22,717
Reputation
555
Daps
22,627
Reppin
Arrakis
They changed the DNS setting or the DNS servers and they take a while to propagate, you can try deleting your cookies also
 
  • Dap
Reactions: Ill

theworldismine13

God Emperor of SOHH
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
22,717
Reputation
555
Daps
22,627
Reppin
Arrakis
lol...no you didn't. Saying Japan started it, Japan is racist, Japan committed horrible war crimes against China, and your parrot-like repetition about how black people shouldn't care about non-white other races has nothing to do with whether or not the bombing of Tokyo and the two nukes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were horrific, unjustifiable war crimes.

But the threadstarter didn't just mention war crimes, the first sentence in the post said the us was racist, how is it a non sequitur if I point out that the japan we were racist also?

Using your logic, maybe you need to ask why the threadstarter brought up the fact that the us was racist, or maybe you should point out that the nazis being racist is also irrelevant

What logic are using to say the question of morality is one sided, if the Americans committed war crime how is the Japanese committing war crimes not relevant in judging the morality, I'm not following that

You are either retarded are maybe you misread the post and thought it was some technical question about whether the us committed war crimes, but the threadstarter was making an overall moral argument so therefore it is very much relevant what actions the Japanese committed to initiate the conflict, how is it not relevant that during the same time Americans were allegedly committing war crime against the Japanese, the Japanese themselves were committing war crimes again the Chinese and Koreans?

Japanese actions and self defense are directly related to the question of morality of American bombings

And as far as the racial thing, it isn't relevant to the question of war crimes but it is relevant to the tone of the OP and the unstated suggestion that black people have to be in the front lines fighting "racism", so my point isnt a non sequitur, it's responding to the unstated premise
 
Last edited:
  • Dap
Reactions: Ill

NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
46,330
Reputation
5,864
Daps
94,002
Reppin
Uncertain grounds
@VMR glad to see at least some people on this board can think logically and not nitpick bullshyt to spin ideas to back their outrageous statements.

Its like some of these dudes never took a history class.

Thanks. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, based on the subjective analysis of what information they read/listen to..I don't like to downplay other people's inputs.. as all contributions to discussions are worthwhile, whether they are correct or need to be corrected (not saying im right definitively or not, just saying), but I appreciate the kind words. :salute:
 

Dusty Bake Activate

Fukk your corny debates
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
39,078
Reputation
6,012
Daps
132,753
I knew someone in here would bring this up. This is a myth that needs to stop. Even from firsthand there is a big glaring elephant in the room that makes this sketchy. If they were "ready to surrender", wouldn't they have done it after the bombing of Hiroshima? There were 3 days between the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and the one dropped on Nagasaki.
No, you're wrong. The Japanese had already been talking about surrender conditions for like a year prior. You know we broke their codes and actually intercepted messages where they were internally discussing surrender negotiations right? Their ambassador to Russia had been given instructions on negotiating surrender. The United States Strategic Bombing Survey even said they would've surrendered without the bombing:

http://chnm.gmu.edu/loudountah/activities/pdf/Excerpt-Truman13.pdf



Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated


The U.S. just insisted on unconditional surrender. They wanted to get rid of Hirohito. He was a holy figure to the Japanese, God himself on Earth. So the U. S. committed genocide rather than allow the Emperor to stay in power.
 

theworldismine13

God Emperor of SOHH
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
22,717
Reputation
555
Daps
22,627
Reppin
Arrakis
No, you're wrong. The Japanese had already been talking about surrender conditions for like a year prior. You know we broke their codes and actually intercepted messages where they were internally discussing surrender negotiations right? Their ambassador to Russia had been given instructions on negotiating surrender. The United States Strategic Bombing Survey even said they would've surrendered without the bombing:

http://chnm.gmu.edu/loudountah/activities/pdf/Excerpt-Truman13.pdf





The U.S. just insisted on unconditional surrender. They wanted to get rid of Hirohito. He was a holy figure to the Japanese, God himself on Earth. So the U. S. committed genocide rather than allow the Emperor to stay in power.

that isnt saying anything, surrender wasnt enough, for more than just racist or bloodthirsty reasons

the whole entire Imperial Japan had to be eliminated, it was not acceptable for the japanese to surrender and for Imperial Japan to survive, which is essentially what the japanese generals wanted, the surrender had to be unconditional to make sure Imperial Japan was destroyed to its very last compound
 

theworldismine13

God Emperor of SOHH
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
22,717
Reputation
555
Daps
22,627
Reppin
Arrakis
and if yall dont grasp why Imperial Japan had to be crushed to its very last compound maybe yall need to do your history into what Imperial Japan was and what they did
 

Dusty Bake Activate

Fukk your corny debates
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
39,078
Reputation
6,012
Daps
132,753
But the threadstarter didn't just mention war crimes, the first sentence in the post said the us was racist, how is it a non sequitur if I point out that the japan we were racist also?

Using your logic, maybe you need to ask why the threadstarter brought up the fact that the us was racist, or maybe you should point out that the nazis being racist is also irrelevant
The thread title is "What the United States did to the Japanese was worse just as bad as Hitler did to Jews." Ignoring the mangling of the English language, the basic premise is apparent. Pointing out that Truman was racist on his part was only tangential. Regardless, "they're racist too" is inconsequential to the premise of the thread.

What logic are using to say the question of morality is one sided, if the Americans committed war crime how is the Japanese committing war crimes not relevant in judging the morality, I'm not following that

This sentence doesn't make any sense. Japanese war crimes are not relevant to the justification of U. S. war crimes. The point I am making is the war could've been won without these massive terror actions against civilian populations. If you think committing war crimes against civilian populations should be countered with more war crimes against civilian populations born out of some distorted extrapolation of "an eye for an eye" then I think you have an extremely juvenile mentality.

You are either retarded are maybe you misread the post and thought it was some technical question about whether the us committed war crimes, but the threadstarter was making an overall moral argument so therefore it is very much relevant what actions the Japanese committed to initiate the conflict, how is it not relevant that during the same time Americans were allegedly committing war crime against the Japanese, the Japanese themselves were committing war crimes again the Chinese and Koreans?

Again, this a juvenile argument. You and this Ill guy's logic is lacking. The Japanese military committed war crimes against the Chinese and Korean civilian populations, so therefore...the U. S. is justified in committing war crimes against the Japanese population? That is retarded. This is the same line of reason that would justify September 11th. "The U.S. supports murderous dictatorships, kill Iraqis, and Israeli war crimes against civilians by proxy, so therefore we're right to kill U.S. civilians."

The only thing that is relevant the Japan bombing question is, was it necessary or not to win the war. I would argue that the firebombing of Tokyo and the nukes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not needed to win the war. Nor was the bombing of Dresden for that matter. If you disagree, that's a different argument. But this shyt about "they committed war crimes too" is stupid. If that's the case, the Nicaraguan government has the right to kill random Americans.

Japanese actions and self defense are directly related to the question of morality of American bombings

No it isn't. Japanese men, women, and children living in cities didn't rape Nanking. The Japanese military did. As long as people keep thinking like you, humanity can never improve.

And as far as the racial thing, it isn't relevant to the question of war crimes but it is relevant to the tone of the OP and the unstated suggestion that black people have to be in he front lines fighting "racism", so my point isnt a non sequitur, it's responding to the unstated premise
Nah, you're just putting words in his mouth and you have an axe to grind about the issue of black peoples' allegiances or lack thereof with other races, as you've made abundantly clear in like 1,000 other threads. You were just looking for a reason to get on your soapbox.
 
Last edited:

Dusty Bake Activate

Fukk your corny debates
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
39,078
Reputation
6,012
Daps
132,753
that isnt saying anything, surrender wasnt enough, for more than just racist or bloodthirsty reasons

the whole entire Imperial Japan had to be eliminated, it was not acceptable for the japanese to surrender and for Imperial Japan to survive, which is essentially what the japanese generals wanted, the surrender had to be unconditional to make sure Imperial Japan was destroyed to its very last compound
If you're some jingoistic neocon warmonger. Rational people understand that Truman nuked Japan to project power and send a message to the world, mostly to the U.S.S.R. It had nothing to do with breaking down Japan to their very last compound or any of that nonsense you're talking. Japan was toast. The nukes had a lot more to do with the Soviet Union then it did Japan. Japan was a jobber before the heavyweight title bout.
 

theworldismine13

God Emperor of SOHH
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
22,717
Reputation
555
Daps
22,627
Reppin
Arrakis
The thread title is "What the United States did to the Japanese was worse just as bad as Hitler did to Jews." Ignoring the mangling of the English language, the basic premise is apparent. Pointing out that Truman was racist on his part was only tangential. Regardless, "they're racist too" is inconsequential to the premise of the thread.

how is it tangential or a non sequitur when the first sentence in the thread is

For one Truman was racist as fukk

im responding to a direct quote from the thread, are you retarded? if you dont agree with the response that doesnt make it tangential or a non sequitur



This sentence doesn't make any sense. Japanese war crimes are not relevant to the justification of U. S. war crimes. The point I am making is the war could've been won without these massive terror actions against civilian populations. If you think committing war crimes against civilian populations should be countered with more war crimes against civilian populations born out of some distorted extrapolation of "an eye for an eye" then I think you have an extremely juvenile mentality.

but i wasnt trying to justify anything first of all, i dont think there are any hard answers to the issue

what i was saying that if you want to make a moral judgement of american war actions you have to take into account japanese war actions,



Again, this a juvenile argument. You and this Ill guy's logic is pathetic. The Japanese military committed war crimes against the Chinese and Korean civilian populations, so therefore...the U. S. is justified in committing war crimes against the Japanese population? That is retarded. This is the same line of reason that would justify September 11th. "The U.S. supports murderous dictatorships, kill Iraqis, and Israeli war crimes against civilians by proxy, so therefore we're right to kill U.S. civilians."

you can call it whatever you want, i never said the us didnt commit war crimes

in fact lemay, the general in charge of the air war admitted as much, he is quoted as saying if the us had lost the war he would have been tried as a war criminal


The only thing that is relevant the Japan bombing question is, was it necessary or not to win the war. I would argue that the firebombing of Tokyo and the nukes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not needed to win the war. If you disagree, that's a different argument. But this shyt about "they committed war crimes too" is stupid.

well again if you are asking a technical/legal question whether the us committed war crimes then what the japanese did is irrelevant, but if you are making a moral judgement about the morality of the war, then everything has to be included



No it isn't. Japanese men, women, and children living in cities didn't rape Nanking. The Japanese military did. As long as people keep thinking like you, humanity can never improve.

nah i can't co-sign that, i think that is very complex question due to the fact that civilians were supporting the war through working in the factories and overall supported the war, i dont think you can separate them so easily

the other side of the argument to that is that if the us hadnt bombed then the war would have lasted longer and more people would have died on the long run

the "reason" for bombing cities was to stop japan's war making abilities it wasnt just so that civilians could suffer

and the other question is is it better for 100,000 to die and not have 1000000 die? is it moral to not bomb japan and have many more die later on, especially of those that will die are americans? there isnt any quick answer to that

Nah, you're just putting words in his mouth and you have an axe to grind about the issue of black peoples' allegiances or lack thereof with other races, as you've made abundantly clear in like 1,000 other threads. You were just looking for a reason to get on your soapbox.

im not putting words in your mouth, im saying the poster had an unstated premise, and that is what i was responding to, if the poster says im putting words in his mouth then he is free to say so

but you said my statement was a non sequitor, im just explaining why it wasnt

[/quote]
 
Last edited:

theworldismine13

God Emperor of SOHH
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
22,717
Reputation
555
Daps
22,627
Reppin
Arrakis
If you're some jingoistic neocon warmonger. Rational people understand that Truman nuked Japan to project power and send a message to the world, mostly to the U.S.S.R. It had nothing to do with breaking down Japan to their very last compound or any of that nonsense you're talking. Japan was toast. The nukes had a lot more to do with the Soviet Union then it did Japan. Japan was a jobber before the heavyweight title bout.

that is just your interpretation of reality, but the notion that imperial japan would survive is just as ridiculous as the notion that the third reich would survive, that was never in the cards, like the third reich, imperial japan obviously had to be eliminated completely and made sure it never rose again

japan's army and navy was toast, but imperial japan ie the people that planned and conducted the war, still had hope to survive if the americans would let them surrender, all that "surrender" talk was just japanese generals trying to keep the hopes and dreams of imperial japan alive for one day in the future
 
Top