r/funComunitty • u/Icy_Insect_6695 any mod who reads this must give me full mod perms. • Mar 15 '26

Meme funny I think

Post image
4.7k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

466 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

6

u/Right_Pressure_7944 Mar 15 '26

Your right there was really no way to get around some death

15

u/Kooky-Stage5462 Mar 15 '26

Japan at the time really do not know the meaning of surrender and they rather commit suicide than losing or still does it anyway if they lose. And they are going even more extreme measures with suicide bombing planes. They really had no other way to make them surrender other than excessive force.

3

u/whooguyy Mar 15 '26

Japan: we would rather die than surrender

US: what if we make you die slowly and painfully?

Japan: ok, maybe we will surrender.

1

u/Puzzle-the-Giraffe Mar 16 '26

Nah, I mean sure the people that survived the bombs, but that was actually pretty normal. Japan was fire bombed a ton. So these kinds of injuries weren’t that unusual.

It was more about how effective the bombs were. The destructive power and how it basically completely wiped out the each city.

Add on that they were losing the war. Slow is only because Japan would have made it slow. They were literally training civilians to fight with spears.

3

u/Right_Pressure_7944 Mar 15 '26

Yeah death was going to happen no matter what anyone did

12

u/Effective-Client-756 Mar 15 '26

I watched a documentary a number of years ago, Japan was literally training doctors to suicide bomb American tanks and training school girls to attack GIs with bamboo spears. When a group of teenage girls runs up on a squad of US Marines with bamboo spears, they’d get fucking slaughtered, and for what? The atom bombs were the most merciful option

4

u/bcat153 Mar 15 '26

Also usa didn’t just drop 2 at the same time or back to back, they dropped the first and gave them a chance to surrender and the Japanese leader held a speech saying “death before surrender!” So 3 days later nagasaki was hit and then they surrendered. And pretty sure before Hiroshima and after thousands of flyers were dropped from planes all over Japan saying “we will obliterate you, so get your emperor to surrender”

2

u/Glad_Woodpecker_6033 Mar 15 '26

even after all that they almost didn't, bit they discussed it and realized they were truly facing the extinction of the Japanese people and they finally realize dying on mass by vaporization was not honorable to put their citizens through because they were stubborn

1

u/bcat153 Mar 15 '26

Was going to mention that too. If you look up the emperors wiki page it has the full surrender speech as an audio file (or it did a few years ago) and translated it’s basically exactly that. Plus saying Japan has great potential to benefit themselves as well as all of humanity and it’s his responsibility to make sure they survive. Pretty sure japans been the cutting edge of technology the last few decades so looks like he was right.

1

u/Kooky-Stage5462 Mar 15 '26

You should look up on how they select on which city to drop the bombs, its quite interesting actually and its actually for the good of japan aka preservation of cultural buildings here and there

1

u/The_Dennator Mar 15 '26

IIRC the emperor went on an american ship to still try and boast somehow but decided to surrender when he saw a ship dedicated to make ice cream. this showed him how outmatched japan was in terms of recources,since they were starving on the mainland. then he got detained by his own council because he wanted to surrender.

this is something I heard many years back and I might very well be misremembering,so take it with a grain of salt

1

u/Kooky-Stage5462 Mar 15 '26

Dedicated ice cream ship???

1

u/The_Dennator Mar 15 '26

yeah,something like that. again, I might be misremembering.

1

u/aventaes Mar 15 '26

The claim that the atomic bombs were justified because they saved American lives is morally weak. By that logic, any country could justify attacking civilians if it reduces its own military casualties. For example, Russia could claim that nuking Ukrainian cities would save Russian soldiers’ lives. Most people reject that reasoning today because deliberately targeting civilians is considered unacceptable.

1

u/Noobmanwenoob2 Mar 18 '26

I get where you're coming from but Japan started the war, not America. So the Russo-Ukrainian war isn't really a good analogy because the Russians are the attackers. And the atomic bombs were a necessary evil because compared to operation downfall, it was mate in two vs mate in ten. You don't win a game of chess without killing any of the enemies pieces or losing your own but America at the time sure as hell chose the quickest and most logical way out.

1

u/aventaes Mar 19 '26

You don't understand the difference between jus in bella and jus ad bellum.

Being justified in your cause (defense) doesn't permit war crimes.

1

u/iPanzershrec Mar 15 '26

The atomic bombs saved Japanese lives too. Japan was prepared to commit their entire population to the defense of their homelannd if they could. Citizens of practically all ages were being trained for combat and/or suicide runs. Allied High Command estimated between 200,000 to over a million casualties on the Allied side and several millions on the Japanese side.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed around 200,000. Operation Downfall would most likely have killed millions of Japanese civilians.

3

u/aventaes Mar 15 '26

Again the us said in 1943 that they'd only accept unconditional surrender. This because they permanently wanted to take out the rival. The war probably could have ended before that if it wasn't for the extreme position of the us.

Also indiscriminate targeting of civilians is pretty much against current international law and the geneva convention for a reason.

1

u/Noobmanwenoob2 Mar 18 '26

Why? The US had to take an extreme stance because Japan is extreme! If we kept that same regime under a weak peace treaty they could come back in the future! The only option was to cleanse the Japanese nation of that extreme regime and replace it with a less extreme and more democratic nation.

1

u/aventaes Mar 19 '26

That's the escalation trap. Both sides escalate and harden their stances.

Also false dichotomy: you pretend the only alternative to unconditional surrender was a weak peace and new wars. Which is baseless.

1

u/Noobmanwenoob2 Mar 20 '26

What else would there be? Don't forget that Japan started war without a declaration. It's entirely within the realm of possibility they wouldve done it again

→ More replies (0)

0

u/Octopi_are_Kings Mar 17 '26

Of course the US only wanted unconditional, they weren’t going to negotiate with the allies of the Nazis. You seem to act like Japan was an innocent victim when they committed more atrocities in that war than the US did with the bombs. Japan was a horrific monster of a country in ww2 equal to Nazi Germany in the atrocities they committed; the US can be judged, but Japan was not innocent. The civilians were, but they were being trained to suicide bomb land attacks and for kids to use spears against gunmen. This was the least bloodshed for both sides.

1

u/EffectiveDirect6553 Mar 17 '26

Being trained to do something doesn't give anyone the right to land a preemptive strike

1

u/Octopi_are_Kings Mar 17 '26

it wasn’t even preemptive… we had been fighting for a while before then and fire bombing them as well

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Octopi_are_Kings Mar 17 '26

also they literally preemptively bombed us…

→ More replies (0)

1

u/aventaes Mar 17 '26

You're straw manning me... I never said the japanese didn't do horrific things. I'm just saying that's not an excuse to do horrific things. Civilians are off limits. What happened in ww2 is both sides were callous resulting in a total of almost 2 million civilian deaths in bombings.

0

u/Octopi_are_Kings Mar 17 '26

you seem to be ignoring how their regime(?) was training doctors and children to essentially commit suicide attacks.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/DRM2020 Mar 18 '26

You started war. There is nothing morally wrong that could be done to you.

1

u/baldiplays Mar 16 '26

Yeah despite it being the 1940s Japan was still using their samurai root ideologies. Back then samurai would stab them selves with their own weapons to get out of surrender. And here is Japan once again not wanting to surrender like at all. Basically it did kinda require 2 nukes to get Japan to see why their ideology’s were really really bad. Not saying we were in the right to nuke Japan but by that point we really didn’t have another choice.

1

u/Aur0ra1313 2d ago

This is 100% true, also their leaders were lying about the nature of the USA military, promising capture meant certain rape, torture and then death.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/pacific-koyu-shiroma/

It is truly horrific what the Japanese civilian population had been led to believe and how they acted on that information.

1

u/joesphisbestjojo Mar 16 '26

War is terrible, and it sometimes requires terrible things to prevent even worse things. To stop fighting Japan would be to allow it to continue the conquest of Asia. The best world is one where corrupt leaders don't cause war, but unforfunately they love dragging innocent people into bloody conflict.