Yuck. He's even more annoying than usual, too. Also, he should not do facial hair.
Also, I don't care if it's more "traditionally left" or "right," I'm more inclined to respect someone who says the mass killing of civilians is bad, than that it's justified. I'm open to an argument, but if I just have to pick a side, I'm on the anti-mass civilian murder side. Guess I'm a leftist, because shitbag neocon Ben Shapiro said so.
Also, as with all war, it was all political. Would not dropping the bombs have cost some lives? Yeah. But Japan already wanted to surrender, they just didn't want to be completely enslaved by the victors, and wanted better terms. The US didn't drop the bombs to save the lives of the soldiers that would have died by not dropping them, either. I can guarantee you that was barely even a consideration. It was geopolitical, and also just scientific...they wanted to test the bombs in wartime. They wanted to oppress the defeated Japan. They wanted more economic and geopolitical benefit.
Anyone saved by the bombs was a fringe benefit...not that that makes saving their lives any less valuable, but it's worth keeping in mind. No, the intentional mass killing of civilians was an intention move to bully and oppress the losing side. Tucker was a bit off the handle at times in that interview, but he's right...that's evil.
There were more arguments at play, though. Can't recall all of them, but by forcing an immediate surrender (took two nuclear bombs, the invasion of Manchuria by the Soviets and months of fire raids) they could save many months of warfare, even when the inevitable defeat was already on the horizon. Also, the Pacific campaign saw gruesome American losses in manpower. They were dealing with an enemy that was using kamikaze airplanes. With the nukes, there was no need to actually invade the Japanese mainland with a million-strong force.
And the nukes were the cherry on top of recent air raids with napalm that took even more lives.
Yep. There's actually a long historical debate, and anyone who thinks that "well it's wrong" is the end of the discussion is historically ignorant at best, and a knee-jerk nazi retard at worst.
Ben is right here. "just asking questions" doesn't mean you actually understand the history of it, or have read books about it.
The bombing was not a moral good by any means, but neither were the fire bombing campaigns we carried out. War is always about the lesser of two evils when it comes to bombs, and in this case I at least believe (because this isn't a black and white absolute) the first bomb was justified to avoid causing millions more needless deaths. The second one is a bit trickier, but it's been a long time since I've read up on the exact time line of how the japan government reacted, so I can't be more specific about why right now. The Japanese tended to fight back to the death, because of propaganda they'd all be raped and tortured (like they did to others), or they killed themselves (including children, look up bonzai cliff, etc).
Imagine what the fight on the home islands would have looked like. Everyone with a gun killing everyone else, the fire bombings (which are horrific BTW, and we did plenty of those) would have continued.
Was dropping a nuke morally good? No, not really. But I think it was less morally bad than the other option, which says a lot about how bad the other option was.
My understanding of Tucker's argument isn't that dropping the bombs was the primary evil, but dropping it on civilians. I understanding manufacturering and whatnot takes place in cities, but it is quite the stretch to justify dropping a nuke in the middle of large civilian populations. Sure, legitimate military targets were hit, but the collateral damage was far too high.
In short, the choice of targets was morally worse than many other options.
Just occurred to me that maybe another part of the reason for a civilian-heavy target was that air defenses would be much lighter. Given how there was only one bomb per run, you'd really want to minimize any risk to the bomber during such an operation.
You have to consider historical context, and what actually happened.
Firstly, bombing cities was an accepted practice. People spoke against it, even people in power, but it continued. Some of this is public vs private opinions, some is inertia, some is that it was a valid military tactic due to accuracy (or lack thereof) of airborne and ground based weaponry.
Secondly, people in houses were helping manufacture war material. This is a much weaker argument (to me), but still relevant to their views and opinions.
Thirdly, Japan was going to fight until the bitter end. The thought was to shock them into giving up.
So morally worse is relative. If the bombs dropped elsewhere wouldn't have worked, we'd have had nuked people... And then still killed a million more Americans plus whoever many Japanese, etc. Ultimately, it's not a black and white point.
There are loaded assumptions about hypotheticals in there. How do we know the Japanese wouldn't have surrendered if the bombs were dropped on two other targets? What if one was mostly just a show of force that could be seen in the distance from Tokyo?
I use to parrot the same talking points about the nuke -- it's what "the experts" have said since the bombs were dropped -- but as I've thought about it over the years, I don't buy it wholesale. Like all good deceit, there is certainly some truth to the traditional defense of bombing those cities, but it isn't the whole truth.
As for everyone was bombing cities, "everyone is doing it" isn't a good moral arguement. As Jesus said, the wide road most people travel actually leads to hell.
You can read the hundreds of books written on it, I'm not writing a doctoral thesis here for you on it. This has all been covered and you don't have to agree, but coming at it from where you are is very short sighted imo.
The absolute wanted to test the bomb on a live city. That’s why they didn’t fire bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki like they did Tokyo. It also acted as a way to threaten the Soviets/rest of the world.
You are absolutely right that they wanted an unconditional surrender. I believe it was during Tehran Conference that the west agreed to not sign a peace with Nazi German once we beat them back to the French/German border.
The Second World War was all about enshrining the establishment. Just look up the "Four Policemen".
We were already using mass firebombs, the nuke was actually merciful in comparison to winning with the tactics we had been using. You're approaching it from the perspective of "what if we just didn't finish the war". If you consider having to win the fight as an unavoidable requirement, which it was, using the nukes to force capitulation was better than continuing to grind them for months with bombing campaigns and an invasion.
Let's not talk about the hypothetical about Japan being on the verge of collapse and ready to surrender. Let's also not bring up the uncannily Christian nature of these targets, or even any other "conspiracy theory" relating to why the bombs dropped. Let's even grant that dropping the bombs could be seen as a legitimate strategic decision that ended up saving more lives overall. The positive decision to use nukes to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians to convince a foreign government to capitulate absolutely is definitionally evil according to any moral framework that isn't pitiless utilitarianism. You could argue that it was a necessary evil, perhaps, but this idea that it was a moral good to perform such an act is the absolute peak of hubris and I am completely unsurprised to see ol chickenhawk benji here saying it without any reservation.
Most people don't know, either, that the fire bombing raids on Japan killed far more civilians than the nuke drops. Back then, most homes in Japan were wooden. The fire bombing raids caused massive firestorms, killing hundreds of thousands.
Without going into my opinion on this, there is certainly more than enough debate around this subject to say that this comment is obviously not deliberate disinformation.
Leave it to Ben to determine for the rest of us what "just asking questions" qualifies as. He uses that phrase as a reference to the JQ, so it's already a poisoned term, but 'asking questions' does sometimes require broaching subjects that may be entirely wrong, misguided, or very uncomfortable.
For Ben's case, he has a deeply personal investment in controlling what sorts of questions are asked, and by whom. As biased as he is easily dismissed.
There are two fundamental ways to get closer to truth: asking questions and debate. If someone demonizes, censors, or attacks anyone partaking in these avenues it means they don't want people to learn the truth. Ben's motivations should be clear for anyone even moderately aware of the lies and manipulations surrounding WW2, and its connection to the state of Israel.
Saying the nukes were wrong is questioning the WW2 narrative which is the foundational myth of the US (and UK) of the 20th century. If you can question any parts of the narrative then you can question all of the parts of it. I think we see where this is going.
The Nukes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki will ALWAYS be controversial as they were the first (and hopefully only) time nukes directly targeted and deployed on people.
There's a lot of debate if they were required since the Soviet Union push starting against them would probably mean they'd prefer to surrender against America to preserve their culture than have communists on Japanese soil. Maybe but there was internal communications in the higher Japanese government that rejected any surrender since the US wanted unconditional and it was only after Nagasaki that they thought the US had HUNDREDS of nukes to drop did they think to just surrender.
Hell they actual tried to coup the Emperor as he was surrendering so that was the level of resistance to it. They were so indoctrinated into the cult of the Emperor that a single photo of him standing next to a US General shattered a lot of that seeing how small he was in comparison
I agree with the second part but asking questions is still need it for critical thinking, it is the first step. What his boss was saying was not to question.
Things are going to get a lot worse for the DW if they want to go this route.
Evaluating evidence and claims, as to first start with asking yourself questions. It's the necessary first step. You don't evaluate anything if you never ask questions, you just accept everything.
Why can't something be both evil and necessary? Why can't nuking Hiroshima be evil and the right decision? It seems like a peculiar fixation on maintaining a self image of being good no matter what heinous actions are performed.
Japan was a murderous regime that deserved everything it got. Yes people were vaporized. Yes Us soldiers raped girls on every island that was taken from the japs. But its part of war and as a result they were finally subdued. Besides, why would anyone want to question this now? Unless the end goal is to question what the Germans of the Japs did...
So, as someone who was born in one of those countries that Japan invaded and whose family was there during the time of the invasion, Japan deserved the nukes. But I have no issues with people questioning it
So, as someone who was born in one of those countries that Japan invaded and whose family was there during the time of the invasion, Japan deserved the nukes.
Than America also deserves some nukes. And Germany. And Russia. And most major countries, and everyone in the wars. What's your point?
History is written by the victors. Did Japan do terrible shit? Absolutely. And if they'd won, history would rightfully hold the United States and the Allies accountable for their numerous atrocities, while the Axis side gets off scot-free from theirs.
Again, the Japanese did fucking monstrous stuff...so did everyone else. That doesn't absolve Japan, to be clear. Just saying it's all a matter of perspective.
Also, nuking civilians just because their government did bad shit in a war is terrible logic. It would make any city in America a legitimate target for our enemies, for starters.
Isn't it wild how the intentional targetting and murdering of civilians by Allies is swept under the rug, not taught, or perfectly justified in WW2, but when done by the Axis, it's painted as the most heinous thing ever?
The fire bombing of Dresden, which was only to target civilians. Many of our bombing campaigns later in the war, against Japan and Germany, were specifically to target civilians. Many don't even know about the post war atrocities. In Germany alone, we killed tens of millions of civilians, through starvation, rape, forced relocation, and murder, of men, women, children, and elderly. The post war relocation of Germans was one of the largest migrations of people in human history, and almost no one knows about it. Russia mass raped every German woman, from little girls to grandmas, for months (or was it years, I can't remember), many of them to death, in front of their families, often killing anyone who tried to stop it. There's quite a few stories of people unable to sleep in German cities because sll of the glass windows were blown out from all the bombing campaigns, and the screams from all the people being raped every night turned it into a literal hell on earth.
Learning this stuff after my "education" in school, and seeing what movies and shows are offered by Hollywood, paints an extremely clear picture of how insanely skewed "history" is written, and how much people can be manipulated.
In ww2, cities were legitimate targets.In WW3, they will again BE legitimate targets.
Let me know when America starts running multiple comfort women brothels in multiple nations then come and tell me about how you deserve nukes. Or just mass killing people and putting them into graves in multiple fronts.
What is the point of your question? Whether countries deserved to be nuked when they're committing atrocities? Yeah, if you can get away with it. If you could nuke ISIS strongholds without any fallout, wtf wouldn't you.
Or are you trying to retrospectively try and justify nuking America, Germany and Russia? If so, then you're a fucking moron
Say that all you want, doesn't make it not evil. Also, some countries showed restraint and decency...others didn't.
Let me know when America starts running multiple comfort women brothels in multiple nations
Muh comfort women.
...then come and tell me about how you deserve nukes. Or just mass killing people and putting them into graves in multiple fronts.
We do so much worse. Including ruin various countries and prop up their puppet regimes while they do so much worse. Our governments run guns and drugs to the cartels, for instance, who do some of the most gruesome shit it's possible to do to fellow humans, including your examples of forced prostitution and mass graves.
Hell, we fund and arm most of our biggest enemies, for that matter.
What is the point of your question? Whether countries deserved to be nuked when they're committing atrocities? Yeah, if you can get away with it. If you could nuke ISIS strongholds without any fallout, wtf wouldn't you.
I admit I'm not sure I get the point. So you're saying if Japan could have gotten away with nuking America, it would have been justified?
Or are you trying to retrospectively try and justify nuking America, Germany and Russia? If so, then you're a fucking moron
Again, if Japanese cities were "legitimate targets," so were cities in those countries. So I don't have to make an argument justifying the nuking of America, Germany and Russia...you already did. Not only did they all committed atrocities, but cities are legitimate targets to begin with, so I suppose if someone could have gotten away with it they all deserved nuking. Again, that's your argument, not me.
No, my argument is that Japan deserved nuking. Not that hypothetically America deserves nuking because I don't do hypotheticals. If Japan had the nukes at the time and America was behaving like Japan did at the time while Japan wasn't, then sure, maybe America should have gotten nuked
But I don't want to make dumb hypothetical arguments like that because a) japan didn't have the nukes and America wasn't behaving like japan. All I can tell you is that based on the situation in WW2, Japan deserved nuking and it turned out well
A lot of people are trying to translate that event into modern day politics which is retarded because the times were different, the scales of the atrocities being committed were diifferent. They think the argument that Japan should have been nuked back then is somehow an argument to nuke people now, like you and your idea that this is justifying the nuking of America/Germany/Russia. No, you fucking moron because we're not in the late stages of a WW3 where such actions may have to be taken
I don't really have a dog in this fight but just pointing out thats what someone says when he got owned and wants to change the subject, see every press secretary ever
Its still better than the "thinkers" who come up with hypotheticals of everything. What if Germany was nuked back then, or America or Russia. Or every possible country that ever committed anything bad.
And many thousands weren't. They were killed by the japanese without a nuke. Nuking them to force an unconditional surrender and hopefully break their spirit was the best option
Basically copy-pasting another reply: there is a false dichotomy and unfounded assumptions in that traditional defense for dropping the nukes on the cites. How do we know the Japanese wouldn't have surrendered if the bombs were dropped on two other targets? What if one was mostly just a show of force that could be seen in the distance from Tokyo? It isn't simply "we blow up two large cities with manufacturering or we end up in an extended ground war."
Although the firebombing of Tokyo is usually used to justify the nukes, I'd argue that the firebombings help my position that large cities with civillian populations didn't need to be the target for the Japanese to surrender. As is oft repeated, the damage and deaths of the firebombings was greater than the nukes, yet the firebombing clearly didn't cause them to surrender. Thus, it logically was less the actual destruction of the nukes and more of the psychological terror of a mountain of fire capable of such destruction that lead to the surrender.
I get it, I used to think those cities had to be leveled -- it's what "the experts" have said since it happened -- but as I've thought about it over the years, I don't buy it wholesale. Like all good deceit, there is certainly some truth to the traditional defense of bombing those cities, but it isn't the whole truth.
And how do you know the japanese would have surrendered unconditionally? There was a last minute coup attempt by people who didn't want to surrender and just wanted to keep going on.
I don't think it had to be those 2 cities had to be levelled. Could have been any other 2 cities in japan so on that point we agree.
And yes, it kinda goes back to my point about breaking their spirit
I had "?" at the end of those points because I'm posing questions, as we simply don't know, yet we are sold that false dichotomy. We don't even know that it has to be 2 cities; it could have been two isolated military bases, or 1 on Mount Fuji where everyone could see, then one on some military base.
The point is the first and only 2 bombs were on cities, we don't know what effect dropping them anywhere else would have had.
It wasn't just the nukes. We also fire bombed their cities too, at a time where most of their buildings were made with wood. The Nukes were the cherry on top of an already shit sundae. That's not even going over that in all likelyhood the US took deliberate actions pre-ward to instigate them into attacking us so we had an excuse to enter WWII.
...there were military and industrial targets at both Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Of course there were.
We did not drop the bombs there purely to kill the populations of those two cities.
Mixed bag. We dropped the nukes to...drop the nukes. That was the whole point. And we did so with full knowledge that we were nuking civilians. Does the fact that there were also military targets make it any better? No.
Furthermore, in total war, civilian populations are fair targets, because they grow the food that feed the armies, and work in the factories that make armaments.
Yeah, but if one side decides it's total war, that's still evil. You're welcome to argue it's a justified evil, but it's still intentional mass murder of civilians. You can't be the "good guys," demand the other side play by the rules, while breaking all those same rules and murdering a bunch of civilians.
This is without even getting into whether Japan deserved it, which they most certainly did.
Japanese citizens =/= Japan. And, as I said in another comment, if the every day people of a country are to be held accountable for atrocities committed by their government, America - as well as most of the rest of the world - would be an irradiated wasteland.
As I also said in the other comment, the victors write history. The only reason we got away with that shit is because we won. If someone had done the same shit to us, it would be an atrocity the likes of which had never been seen. If we'd done it to Japan, but they'd still won...atrocity. If Germany had done it, but lost...atrocity. If Germany had done it but won...totally justified, they had to do it, it was for the greater good.
Again, you can say it's justified if you want, but it's still evil. And if anyone but the winners had done it, everyone would say it was evil. Very, very, very evil.
You can argue it was because they didn't have the technology, and that's true, but Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan never did anything on that scale. And, again, if they had...people would rightly call it absolute evil.
There were many military reasons to drop those two bombs, and going right to the morality of the decision is shallow and stupid.
No way. Humans have largely, and should strive to, hold themselves to higher standards than mere necessity. You can look at something, see it as militarily advantageous, and still ask if it's moral to do so? After the fact you can certainly criticize immoral decisions, too. Immoral is immoral.
I'm surprised that you're one of the only (few?) people in this thread making this point:
If Germany had done it but won...totally justified
As we saw with covid -- giving untested vaccines to 3yr olds -- 'ethics' mean absolutely nothing to the globalists.
Germany's an odd case -- they had developed Sarin, then the most potent nerve gas in history, but of course, being honourable, didn't use it on their enemies... This despite the countless lives it could have saved!!!
They also didn't use it during the holofrost for, you know, reasons.
It's also interesting because, on the flipside, Israel's main crime is mere recency. You can say their actions are evil or not. But their main optics issue is just that they're doing it now. If they'd done it one hundred years ago...ancient past, who cares?
To be clear, for the record, I condemn what Israel is doing. But it really is a matter of victors writing history, and we in the present living through history. What Israel is doing is totally barbaric. But we accept a lot of barbarism from those that won in the past. It's an interesting double standard, and an interesting thought experiment.
And, yeah, Germany is a bit of a weird juxtaposition. Germany certainly committed atrocities (everyone did), but it seems they could have done a lot worse, but held back. For whatever reasons. And, from everything I've heard, Hitler absolutely despised chemical weapons, having served in WW1. Some claim that's not true, and I certainly can't claim to know, but whether for tactical or moral reasons, it's a fact he didn't use them.
I'm not even picking sides here, but if the Axis had won, the Allies would have been villainized for numerous crimes they did commit, and numerous crimes they didn't, while the Axis's crimes would be swept under the rug. It's just how things work.
Using your own logic, and even using the official history of WW2, if targetting civilians is fine in war, how come the U.S. were the good guys in WW2, but Germans were the bad guys?
The germans started the war. Who swings first matters. They didn't have a justified provocation, they invaded poland to gain territory knowing it would kick off the second great war.
If you still think that, then you're ignorant to the censored history of WW2. I don't blame you, considering the amount of propaganda and censorship surrounding the subject.
In reality, the British started the war (and who were using the British; for reference, check out the Balfour Declaration). The British made a secret deal with Poland, that if Poland got into a war with Germany the British would ally with Poland (even if Poland started it), and wanted them to instigate/start a war with Germany, to crush the German people. This is why Britain declared war on Germany for invading, and not on Soviet Russia for doing the exact same thing and in the exact same month. Weird, right? This would also explain the deliberate targetting of German civilians before, during, and after the war. It would also explain why numerous attempts at peace talks, initiated by Germany, were denied (both during WW1 and WW2). This would also explain why Rudolf Hess, a high ranking Nazi party member, flew secretly to Britain to try to initiate peace talks, but instead was arrested, and kept in prison under trumped up charges until he committed suicide in 1987.
Have you not heard about the atrocities against the Germans living in the newly created Poland after WW1? It's certainly not taught in schools, and it's not shown in any mainstream media. It would run counter to all of the programming surrounding WW2, since it's paramount to present Nazi Germany as the ultimate bad guys, who deserved everything that happened to them, including civilians, including women, children, and eldery.
Keep in mind that most of those Germans had lived there (in Poland, and surrounding areas) for hundreds (or thousands of years). Look at maps of Prussia, the Teutonic Knights, and the general area the German people inhabited prior to WW1. After WW2, the expulsion of all the Germans east of the new borders led to one of the largest forced human migrations in history, killing millions of them. However, before the war started, the Polish killed tens of thousands of Germans, before Germany invaded. The Polish were subjugating the Germans in Poland, before Germany invaded. The Polish threatened to invade and attack Germany, multiple times, before Germany invaded. The Polish actively boasted about being able to defeat Germany by themselves, and gave out their invasion plans, openly, before Germany invaded. The Polish even made several small military attacks on German farms and military installations, in German territory, before Germany invaded. By even the weakest cucked standards of today, Germany had a right to invade. The war inflated, after Germany invaded Poland to protect it's own people, precisely because that was exactly what the British, "Western", and "Soviet" powers wanted.
Read these accounts of the crimes and sentiments by the Polish against the German people:
Shapiro is an agent of a foreign government, he doesn't give a fuck about America or Hiroshima/Nagasaki.
He is just normalizing the narrative in preparation for Netanyahu dropping the bomb on Gaza and Iran.
I doubt Israel would irradiate the land.
Depends if you perform an airburst or not.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3RRycSmd5A
Yuck. He's even more annoying than usual, too. Also, he should not do facial hair.
Also, I don't care if it's more "traditionally left" or "right," I'm more inclined to respect someone who says the mass killing of civilians is bad, than that it's justified. I'm open to an argument, but if I just have to pick a side, I'm on the anti-mass civilian murder side. Guess I'm a leftist, because shitbag neocon Ben Shapiro said so.
Also, as with all war, it was all political. Would not dropping the bombs have cost some lives? Yeah. But Japan already wanted to surrender, they just didn't want to be completely enslaved by the victors, and wanted better terms. The US didn't drop the bombs to save the lives of the soldiers that would have died by not dropping them, either. I can guarantee you that was barely even a consideration. It was geopolitical, and also just scientific...they wanted to test the bombs in wartime. They wanted to oppress the defeated Japan. They wanted more economic and geopolitical benefit.
Anyone saved by the bombs was a fringe benefit...not that that makes saving their lives any less valuable, but it's worth keeping in mind. No, the intentional mass killing of civilians was an intention move to bully and oppress the losing side. Tucker was a bit off the handle at times in that interview, but he's right...that's evil.
There were more arguments at play, though. Can't recall all of them, but by forcing an immediate surrender (took two nuclear bombs, the invasion of Manchuria by the Soviets and months of fire raids) they could save many months of warfare, even when the inevitable defeat was already on the horizon. Also, the Pacific campaign saw gruesome American losses in manpower. They were dealing with an enemy that was using kamikaze airplanes. With the nukes, there was no need to actually invade the Japanese mainland with a million-strong force.
And the nukes were the cherry on top of recent air raids with napalm that took even more lives.
Yep. There's actually a long historical debate, and anyone who thinks that "well it's wrong" is the end of the discussion is historically ignorant at best, and a knee-jerk nazi retard at worst.
Ben is right here. "just asking questions" doesn't mean you actually understand the history of it, or have read books about it.
The bombing was not a moral good by any means, but neither were the fire bombing campaigns we carried out. War is always about the lesser of two evils when it comes to bombs, and in this case I at least believe (because this isn't a black and white absolute) the first bomb was justified to avoid causing millions more needless deaths. The second one is a bit trickier, but it's been a long time since I've read up on the exact time line of how the japan government reacted, so I can't be more specific about why right now. The Japanese tended to fight back to the death, because of propaganda they'd all be raped and tortured (like they did to others), or they killed themselves (including children, look up bonzai cliff, etc).
Imagine what the fight on the home islands would have looked like. Everyone with a gun killing everyone else, the fire bombings (which are horrific BTW, and we did plenty of those) would have continued.
Was dropping a nuke morally good? No, not really. But I think it was less morally bad than the other option, which says a lot about how bad the other option was.
My understanding of Tucker's argument isn't that dropping the bombs was the primary evil, but dropping it on civilians. I understanding manufacturering and whatnot takes place in cities, but it is quite the stretch to justify dropping a nuke in the middle of large civilian populations. Sure, legitimate military targets were hit, but the collateral damage was far too high.
In short, the choice of targets was morally worse than many other options.
Just occurred to me that maybe another part of the reason for a civilian-heavy target was that air defenses would be much lighter. Given how there was only one bomb per run, you'd really want to minimize any risk to the bomber during such an operation.
You have to consider historical context, and what actually happened.
Firstly, bombing cities was an accepted practice. People spoke against it, even people in power, but it continued. Some of this is public vs private opinions, some is inertia, some is that it was a valid military tactic due to accuracy (or lack thereof) of airborne and ground based weaponry.
Secondly, people in houses were helping manufacture war material. This is a much weaker argument (to me), but still relevant to their views and opinions.
Thirdly, Japan was going to fight until the bitter end. The thought was to shock them into giving up.
So morally worse is relative. If the bombs dropped elsewhere wouldn't have worked, we'd have had nuked people... And then still killed a million more Americans plus whoever many Japanese, etc. Ultimately, it's not a black and white point.
There are loaded assumptions about hypotheticals in there. How do we know the Japanese wouldn't have surrendered if the bombs were dropped on two other targets? What if one was mostly just a show of force that could be seen in the distance from Tokyo?
I use to parrot the same talking points about the nuke -- it's what "the experts" have said since the bombs were dropped -- but as I've thought about it over the years, I don't buy it wholesale. Like all good deceit, there is certainly some truth to the traditional defense of bombing those cities, but it isn't the whole truth.
As for everyone was bombing cities, "everyone is doing it" isn't a good moral arguement. As Jesus said, the wide road most people travel actually leads to hell.
You can read the hundreds of books written on it, I'm not writing a doctoral thesis here for you on it. This has all been covered and you don't have to agree, but coming at it from where you are is very short sighted imo.
Ah the classic "educate yourself, bigot" deflection. This subject really is one where conservatives become leftists!
The absolute wanted to test the bomb on a live city. That’s why they didn’t fire bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki like they did Tokyo. It also acted as a way to threaten the Soviets/rest of the world.
You are absolutely right that they wanted an unconditional surrender. I believe it was during Tehran Conference that the west agreed to not sign a peace with Nazi German once we beat them back to the French/German border.
The Second World War was all about enshrining the establishment. Just look up the "Four Policemen".
and to tell the soviets to back the fuck off. "we've got more than one of these things"
Great post.
We were already using mass firebombs, the nuke was actually merciful in comparison to winning with the tactics we had been using. You're approaching it from the perspective of "what if we just didn't finish the war". If you consider having to win the fight as an unavoidable requirement, which it was, using the nukes to force capitulation was better than continuing to grind them for months with bombing campaigns and an invasion.
Let's not talk about the hypothetical about Japan being on the verge of collapse and ready to surrender. Let's also not bring up the uncannily Christian nature of these targets, or even any other "conspiracy theory" relating to why the bombs dropped. Let's even grant that dropping the bombs could be seen as a legitimate strategic decision that ended up saving more lives overall. The positive decision to use nukes to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians to convince a foreign government to capitulate absolutely is definitionally evil according to any moral framework that isn't pitiless utilitarianism. You could argue that it was a necessary evil, perhaps, but this idea that it was a moral good to perform such an act is the absolute peak of hubris and I am completely unsurprised to see ol chickenhawk benji here saying it without any reservation.
Most people don't know, either, that the fire bombing raids on Japan killed far more civilians than the nuke drops. Back then, most homes in Japan were wooden. The fire bombing raids caused massive firestorms, killing hundreds of thousands.
We're talking about the nukes specifically, but yes I agree that the firebombing of both Japan and Germany were horrific.
Japan and Germany fucked around, Japan and Germany found out.
Mc Arthur of all people said had they gotten to keep the Emperor position (which they did anyway) they wouldn’t have been needed.
Comment Reported for: Rule 12 - Falsehoods
Without going into my opinion on this, there is certainly more than enough debate around this subject to say that this comment is obviously not deliberate disinformation.
Must have rustled some Daily Wire jimmies!
Your moral frameworks can only stand on a bedrock of heartless pragmatism.
You're like Gohan before going SSJ2 but will never get there.
Leave it to Ben to determine for the rest of us what "just asking questions" qualifies as. He uses that phrase as a reference to the JQ, so it's already a poisoned term, but 'asking questions' does sometimes require broaching subjects that may be entirely wrong, misguided, or very uncomfortable.
For Ben's case, he has a deeply personal investment in controlling what sorts of questions are asked, and by whom. As biased as he is easily dismissed.
There are two fundamental ways to get closer to truth: asking questions and debate. If someone demonizes, censors, or attacks anyone partaking in these avenues it means they don't want people to learn the truth. Ben's motivations should be clear for anyone even moderately aware of the lies and manipulations surrounding WW2, and its connection to the state of Israel.
Comment Reported for: Rule 16 - Identity Attacks
Comment Approved: I don't see how.
Now think about his real agenda.
Saying the nukes were wrong is questioning the WW2 narrative which is the foundational myth of the US (and UK) of the 20th century. If you can question any parts of the narrative then you can question all of the parts of it. I think we see where this is going.
"everyone who doesnt like me is hamas"
"it's ok to nuke hamas"
So Ben is creating a strawman argument and going after a guy that is considerably more popular then he is and has a large overlap in audience.
I thought Ben was intelligent
The Nukes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki will ALWAYS be controversial as they were the first (and hopefully only) time nukes directly targeted and deployed on people.
There's a lot of debate if they were required since the Soviet Union push starting against them would probably mean they'd prefer to surrender against America to preserve their culture than have communists on Japanese soil. Maybe but there was internal communications in the higher Japanese government that rejected any surrender since the US wanted unconditional and it was only after Nagasaki that they thought the US had HUNDREDS of nukes to drop did they think to just surrender.
Hell they actual tried to coup the Emperor as he was surrendering so that was the level of resistance to it. They were so indoctrinated into the cult of the Emperor that a single photo of him standing next to a US General shattered a lot of that seeing how small he was in comparison
I agree with the second part but asking questions is still need it for critical thinking, it is the first step. What his boss was saying was not to question.
Things are going to get a lot worse for the DW if they want to go this route.
What are his opinions of Iran dropping a bomb on israel? Would they be evil?
How many lives could be saved if we nuked Jerusalem?
Evaluating evidence and claims, as to first start with asking yourself questions. It's the necessary first step. You don't evaluate anything if you never ask questions, you just accept everything.
A Venn diagram of commenters who constantly whine about "stormfags" on here and people defending Benji in this thread is damn close to a circle.
All deliberately planned civilian deaths in war are evil. So is war itself. .
disagree that war is evil, conquest is a natural phenomenon
Why can't something be both evil and necessary? Why can't nuking Hiroshima be evil and the right decision? It seems like a peculiar fixation on maintaining a self image of being good no matter what heinous actions are performed.
Post Reported for: A JEW SAID SOMETHING THEREFORE I MUST DISAGREE.
sigh
Japan was a murderous regime that deserved everything it got. Yes people were vaporized. Yes Us soldiers raped girls on every island that was taken from the japs. But its part of war and as a result they were finally subdued. Besides, why would anyone want to question this now? Unless the end goal is to question what the Germans of the Japs did...
So, as someone who was born in one of those countries that Japan invaded and whose family was there during the time of the invasion, Japan deserved the nukes. But I have no issues with people questioning it
Than America also deserves some nukes. And Germany. And Russia. And most major countries, and everyone in the wars. What's your point?
History is written by the victors. Did Japan do terrible shit? Absolutely. And if they'd won, history would rightfully hold the United States and the Allies accountable for their numerous atrocities, while the Axis side gets off scot-free from theirs.
Again, the Japanese did fucking monstrous stuff...so did everyone else. That doesn't absolve Japan, to be clear. Just saying it's all a matter of perspective.
Also, nuking civilians just because their government did bad shit in a war is terrible logic. It would make any city in America a legitimate target for our enemies, for starters.
Isn't it wild how the intentional targetting and murdering of civilians by Allies is swept under the rug, not taught, or perfectly justified in WW2, but when done by the Axis, it's painted as the most heinous thing ever?
The fire bombing of Dresden, which was only to target civilians. Many of our bombing campaigns later in the war, against Japan and Germany, were specifically to target civilians. Many don't even know about the post war atrocities. In Germany alone, we killed tens of millions of civilians, through starvation, rape, forced relocation, and murder, of men, women, children, and elderly. The post war relocation of Germans was one of the largest migrations of people in human history, and almost no one knows about it. Russia mass raped every German woman, from little girls to grandmas, for months (or was it years, I can't remember), many of them to death, in front of their families, often killing anyone who tried to stop it. There's quite a few stories of people unable to sleep in German cities because sll of the glass windows were blown out from all the bombing campaigns, and the screams from all the people being raped every night turned it into a literal hell on earth.
Learning this stuff after my "education" in school, and seeing what movies and shows are offered by Hollywood, paints an extremely clear picture of how insanely skewed "history" is written, and how much people can be manipulated.
In ww2, cities were legitimate targets.In WW3, they will again BE legitimate targets.
Let me know when America starts running multiple comfort women brothels in multiple nations then come and tell me about how you deserve nukes. Or just mass killing people and putting them into graves in multiple fronts.
What is the point of your question? Whether countries deserved to be nuked when they're committing atrocities? Yeah, if you can get away with it. If you could nuke ISIS strongholds without any fallout, wtf wouldn't you.
Or are you trying to retrospectively try and justify nuking America, Germany and Russia? If so, then you're a fucking moron
Say that all you want, doesn't make it not evil. Also, some countries showed restraint and decency...others didn't.
Muh comfort women.
We do so much worse. Including ruin various countries and prop up their puppet regimes while they do so much worse. Our governments run guns and drugs to the cartels, for instance, who do some of the most gruesome shit it's possible to do to fellow humans, including your examples of forced prostitution and mass graves.
Hell, we fund and arm most of our biggest enemies, for that matter.
I admit I'm not sure I get the point. So you're saying if Japan could have gotten away with nuking America, it would have been justified?
Again, if Japanese cities were "legitimate targets," so were cities in those countries. So I don't have to make an argument justifying the nuking of America, Germany and Russia...you already did. Not only did they all committed atrocities, but cities are legitimate targets to begin with, so I suppose if someone could have gotten away with it they all deserved nuking. Again, that's your argument, not me.
No, my argument is that Japan deserved nuking. Not that hypothetically America deserves nuking because I don't do hypotheticals. If Japan had the nukes at the time and America was behaving like Japan did at the time while Japan wasn't, then sure, maybe America should have gotten nuked
But I don't want to make dumb hypothetical arguments like that because a) japan didn't have the nukes and America wasn't behaving like japan. All I can tell you is that based on the situation in WW2, Japan deserved nuking and it turned out well
A lot of people are trying to translate that event into modern day politics which is retarded because the times were different, the scales of the atrocities being committed were diifferent. They think the argument that Japan should have been nuked back then is somehow an argument to nuke people now, like you and your idea that this is justifying the nuking of America/Germany/Russia. No, you fucking moron because we're not in the late stages of a WW3 where such actions may have to be taken
I don't really have a dog in this fight but just pointing out thats what someone says when he got owned and wants to change the subject, see every press secretary ever
Its still better than the "thinkers" who come up with hypotheticals of everything. What if Germany was nuked back then, or America or Russia. Or every possible country that ever committed anything bad.
Following someone else's logic to a conclusion is not a "hypothetical." It's just pointing out where your logic leads.
You're the one coming up with justifications for intentionally nuking civilians.
America just gives viagra to child raping sand niggers, bomb civilians and other “fun” stuff
Many thousands of Korean and Chinese slave workers were killed by the nukes.
And many thousands weren't. They were killed by the japanese without a nuke. Nuking them to force an unconditional surrender and hopefully break their spirit was the best option
Basically copy-pasting another reply: there is a false dichotomy and unfounded assumptions in that traditional defense for dropping the nukes on the cites. How do we know the Japanese wouldn't have surrendered if the bombs were dropped on two other targets? What if one was mostly just a show of force that could be seen in the distance from Tokyo? It isn't simply "we blow up two large cities with manufacturering or we end up in an extended ground war."
Although the firebombing of Tokyo is usually used to justify the nukes, I'd argue that the firebombings help my position that large cities with civillian populations didn't need to be the target for the Japanese to surrender. As is oft repeated, the damage and deaths of the firebombings was greater than the nukes, yet the firebombing clearly didn't cause them to surrender. Thus, it logically was less the actual destruction of the nukes and more of the psychological terror of a mountain of fire capable of such destruction that lead to the surrender.
I get it, I used to think those cities had to be leveled -- it's what "the experts" have said since it happened -- but as I've thought about it over the years, I don't buy it wholesale. Like all good deceit, there is certainly some truth to the traditional defense of bombing those cities, but it isn't the whole truth.
And how do you know the japanese would have surrendered unconditionally? There was a last minute coup attempt by people who didn't want to surrender and just wanted to keep going on.
I don't think it had to be those 2 cities had to be levelled. Could have been any other 2 cities in japan so on that point we agree.
And yes, it kinda goes back to my point about breaking their spirit
I had "?" at the end of those points because I'm posing questions, as we simply don't know, yet we are sold that false dichotomy. We don't even know that it has to be 2 cities; it could have been two isolated military bases, or 1 on Mount Fuji where everyone could see, then one on some military base.
The point is the first and only 2 bombs were on cities, we don't know what effect dropping them anywhere else would have had.
I think without loss of life, the psychological damage to break them wouldnt have been enough
It wasn't just the nukes. We also fire bombed their cities too, at a time where most of their buildings were made with wood. The Nukes were the cherry on top of an already shit sundae. That's not even going over that in all likelyhood the US took deliberate actions pre-ward to instigate them into attacking us so we had an excuse to enter WWII.
Of course there were.
Mixed bag. We dropped the nukes to...drop the nukes. That was the whole point. And we did so with full knowledge that we were nuking civilians. Does the fact that there were also military targets make it any better? No.
Yeah, but if one side decides it's total war, that's still evil. You're welcome to argue it's a justified evil, but it's still intentional mass murder of civilians. You can't be the "good guys," demand the other side play by the rules, while breaking all those same rules and murdering a bunch of civilians.
Japanese citizens =/= Japan. And, as I said in another comment, if the every day people of a country are to be held accountable for atrocities committed by their government, America - as well as most of the rest of the world - would be an irradiated wasteland.
As I also said in the other comment, the victors write history. The only reason we got away with that shit is because we won. If someone had done the same shit to us, it would be an atrocity the likes of which had never been seen. If we'd done it to Japan, but they'd still won...atrocity. If Germany had done it, but lost...atrocity. If Germany had done it but won...totally justified, they had to do it, it was for the greater good.
Again, you can say it's justified if you want, but it's still evil. And if anyone but the winners had done it, everyone would say it was evil. Very, very, very evil.
You can argue it was because they didn't have the technology, and that's true, but Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan never did anything on that scale. And, again, if they had...people would rightly call it absolute evil.
No way. Humans have largely, and should strive to, hold themselves to higher standards than mere necessity. You can look at something, see it as militarily advantageous, and still ask if it's moral to do so? After the fact you can certainly criticize immoral decisions, too. Immoral is immoral.
I'm surprised that you're one of the only (few?) people in this thread making this point:
As we saw with covid -- giving untested vaccines to 3yr olds -- 'ethics' mean absolutely nothing to the globalists.
Germany's an odd case -- they had developed Sarin, then the most potent nerve gas in history, but of course, being honourable, didn't use it on their enemies... This despite the countless lives it could have saved!!!
They also didn't use it during the holofrost for, you know, reasons.
It's also interesting because, on the flipside, Israel's main crime is mere recency. You can say their actions are evil or not. But their main optics issue is just that they're doing it now. If they'd done it one hundred years ago...ancient past, who cares?
To be clear, for the record, I condemn what Israel is doing. But it really is a matter of victors writing history, and we in the present living through history. What Israel is doing is totally barbaric. But we accept a lot of barbarism from those that won in the past. It's an interesting double standard, and an interesting thought experiment.
And, yeah, Germany is a bit of a weird juxtaposition. Germany certainly committed atrocities (everyone did), but it seems they could have done a lot worse, but held back. For whatever reasons. And, from everything I've heard, Hitler absolutely despised chemical weapons, having served in WW1. Some claim that's not true, and I certainly can't claim to know, but whether for tactical or moral reasons, it's a fact he didn't use them.
I'm not even picking sides here, but if the Axis had won, the Allies would have been villainized for numerous crimes they did commit, and numerous crimes they didn't, while the Axis's crimes would be swept under the rug. It's just how things work.
Using your own logic, and even using the official history of WW2, if targetting civilians is fine in war, how come the U.S. were the good guys in WW2, but Germans were the bad guys?
The germans started the war. Who swings first matters. They didn't have a justified provocation, they invaded poland to gain territory knowing it would kick off the second great war.
If you still think that, then you're ignorant to the censored history of WW2. I don't blame you, considering the amount of propaganda and censorship surrounding the subject.
In reality, the British started the war (and who were using the British; for reference, check out the Balfour Declaration). The British made a secret deal with Poland, that if Poland got into a war with Germany the British would ally with Poland (even if Poland started it), and wanted them to instigate/start a war with Germany, to crush the German people. This is why Britain declared war on Germany for invading, and not on Soviet Russia for doing the exact same thing and in the exact same month. Weird, right? This would also explain the deliberate targetting of German civilians before, during, and after the war. It would also explain why numerous attempts at peace talks, initiated by Germany, were denied (both during WW1 and WW2). This would also explain why Rudolf Hess, a high ranking Nazi party member, flew secretly to Britain to try to initiate peace talks, but instead was arrested, and kept in prison under trumped up charges until he committed suicide in 1987.
Have you not heard about the atrocities against the Germans living in the newly created Poland after WW1? It's certainly not taught in schools, and it's not shown in any mainstream media. It would run counter to all of the programming surrounding WW2, since it's paramount to present Nazi Germany as the ultimate bad guys, who deserved everything that happened to them, including civilians, including women, children, and eldery.
Keep in mind that most of those Germans had lived there (in Poland, and surrounding areas) for hundreds (or thousands of years). Look at maps of Prussia, the Teutonic Knights, and the general area the German people inhabited prior to WW1. After WW2, the expulsion of all the Germans east of the new borders led to one of the largest forced human migrations in history, killing millions of them. However, before the war started, the Polish killed tens of thousands of Germans, before Germany invaded. The Polish were subjugating the Germans in Poland, before Germany invaded. The Polish threatened to invade and attack Germany, multiple times, before Germany invaded. The Polish actively boasted about being able to defeat Germany by themselves, and gave out their invasion plans, openly, before Germany invaded. The Polish even made several small military attacks on German farms and military installations, in German territory, before Germany invaded. By even the weakest cucked standards of today, Germany had a right to invade. The war inflated, after Germany invaded Poland to protect it's own people, precisely because that was exactly what the British, "Western", and "Soviet" powers wanted.
Read these accounts of the crimes and sentiments by the Polish against the German people:
https://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/articles/wrsynopsis.html
https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/NHC/NewPDFs/GERMANY/GER.Polish.Atrocities.Against.German.Minority.in.Poland.1940.pdf