By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Kasz216 on 30 May 2011
Edit Thread
sapphi_snake said:
Kasz216 said:

It seems to be... since you pretend it was some huge vatican plot... when it clearly wasn't... and the book the article refrenced showed that it wasn't... and no... 3/4ths of the population was about the expected death toll from what i remember reading.

Even if you take it as exagerrated far less japanese died then would have under any other plan.

If the US didn't us Nuclear weapons... everyone would be upset that the US could of ended the war with far less japanese casualties with 2 bombs but didn't and instead insisted on dragging out the war to kill and demoralize the japanese as much as possible.

It was by far the best solution to end the war.  If you think there was a better solution.... name it.

 

Though at the end of the day... plain and simple, you were wrong.  You jumped to wrong conclusions based soley out of what you wished to be true.  Black and whte thinking is and jumping to conclusions what leads to things like proactive wars, and holocausts... not thinking critically about things and looking at why people make desicions.

You read wrong. Do you have any ideea how much 3/4 of the population of Japan meant at the time? It would've been about 70 million people. Essentially, that's more than all the other WWII casualties put together. The only way the death toll could've been so large was if you guys nuked the whole country. It would've meant genocide.

Where did you read this? If you actually did read THIS somewhere, it must've been some revisioned history text by right wind nationalists. Though honestly, this is too much of an exaggeration for even the far right, unless the book you read it was something like The New and Improved History of WWII: America's Glorious Display of Heroism by Sarah Palin. Did it also say that you guys single-handedly defeated the Nazis and won Vietnam (this part mentioned in the sequel: The New and Improved History of the Cold War: In America Red Is Out)?

As for the moral aspects, I agree with Rath. You were also probably more interested in your own casualties, rather than innocent Japanese civilians.


Come up with something that you think would of caused less casualties... though yeah... their foodlines would of been cut.  Any idea how many people starve when they can't access any food for months?

Heck, look at the death tolls that happened after the war due to starvation.  It would of been thousands of times worse... because even the amount people received weekly wouldn't be able to arrive... heck the very first thing the allies did when they took over japan was to greatly enhance the Japanese food distribution network... cause the people had already been starving for 2 years and refused to surrender.  This isn't even counting the inevitable deaths by bombing.

10 Million people were estimated to die AFTER they surrendered due to starvation... an estimate made by Japanese historians.

So... yeah... 70 million not as unheard of as you'd think.  Except it wouldn't of been 70 million since that was about the population of japan at the time.  So more like 52 million. 

1/5th that was already in severe risk of starvation.

Though lets just stick with this 10 million number.  Which would of been worse?  10 million starving?  Or the two nuclear bombs?

Of course... this is getting off the topic that you were wrong and made half cocked allegations based on an article.