Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Slate)   After spending 3 years and $2 billion, extensive studies, analyses, and debate, the US sleepwalked into using the atomic bomb in Japan, which led to the US and Israel launching a cyberattack against Iran's nuclear program. Or something like that   (slate.com) divider line
152
    More: Stupid, Nuclear weapon, World War II, Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, atomic bomb, Second World War, Manhattan Project, Cold War, second A-bomb  
•       •       •

3271 clicks; posted to Main » and Politics » on 07 Aug 2020 at 8:03 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



152 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all

 
Somacandra [TotalFark] [OhFark]
2020-08-07 5:33:18 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size


The best account of the reasons the bomb was ultimately built and used--as a political tool by Sec. of State James F. Byrnes for scaring the Soviets away from Europe, not militarily conquering Japan. Japan surrendered under the same terms as it had been seeking for months, if not at least a year. And they didn't surrender at all until the Red Army arrived to threaten a ground invasion. Also covers how the myth of the bomb's success pushed by the national security establishment came to overtake early military commanders' almost complete disapproval of its use at the time. Most thorough sourcing in a history book of the times, including the use of Sec of War Henry L. Stimson's diary. I highly recommend it to all.
 
AbuHashish
2020-08-07 8:09:10 PM  
Going out on a limb here but...


Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story (2007) - Half Brother Scene (1/10) | Movieclips
Youtube SDIk9DOro4A


/How do I put myself on ignore?
 
Weatherkiss [TotalFark] [OhFark]
2020-08-07 8:16:01 PM  
I was always under the impression that we used the bomb on Japan because we had just finished a harrowing campaign in Europe and we were not in the mood for a pyrhhic victory from a ground invasion of the Japanese mainland where civilians were ready to fight to the death to the tune of a few hundred thousand American casualties.
 
stuffy
2020-08-07 8:17:22 PM  
I love it when people who were not even tickling their daddy's pants. Start second guessing people decisions.
 
bsmz
2020-08-07 8:19:53 PM  
I visited Hiroshima last year and the museum there made it seem like a better target than the OP did. Other sources I can easily find now make it seem more militarily significant: https://www.atomicarchive.com/resources/documents/med/med_chp6.html
 
AlgaeRancher [OhFark]
2020-08-07 8:30:12 PM  

Weatherkiss: I was always under the impression that we used the bomb on Japan because we had just finished a harrowing campaign in Europe and we were not in the mood for a pyrhhic victory from a ground invasion of the Japanese mainland where civilians were ready to fight to the death to the tune of a few hundred thousand American casualties.


The battle for Okinawa was a bloody mess. Mainland japan would have been a lot worse.

the military made so many Purple Heart pins to give our soldiers after the invasion of Japan they still use from that old stockpile today.
 
atlantic_lotion
2020-08-07 8:32:40 PM  
someone educate me. there's tons of controversy over using the a-bomb, but i dont get how it's fundamentally different than other tactics used to kill civilians. the firebombing of tokyo killed 100,000 but we dont honor the anniversary, make tons of documentaries, and write tons of books about the ethics of it. war is hell. why does the particular type of hell matter so much
 
BgJonson79
2020-08-07 8:34:14 PM  

rcain: Somacandra: [Fark user image image 379x606]
The best account of the reasons the bomb was ultimately built and used--as a political tool by Sec. of State James F. Byrnes for scaring the Soviets away from Europe, not militarily conquering Japan. Japan surrendered under the same terms as it had been seeking for months, if not at least a year. And they didn't surrender at all until the Red Army arrived to threaten a ground invasion. Also covers how the myth of the bomb's success pushed by the national security establishment came to overtake early military commanders' almost complete disapproval of its use at the time. Most thorough sourcing in a history book of the times, including the use of Sec of War Henry L. Stimson's diary. I highly recommend it to all.

All of that was covered decently enough in Oliver Stone's "untold history of the United States" ... which really makes us out to be the gaggle of racist rapists and pillagers we truly are

How many democracies have we actually created? How many democracies have we destroyed? How many nations have we brought death and tyranny to because they weren't white and had resources our industrialists wanted?

A very good argument for the rest of the world to unite against the true evil on this earth. Because in a couple decades, the racist, hate-filled, willfully ignorant and utterly subhuman MAGAt trash will be the typical American


Guess we found the article author.
 
Corn_Fed
2020-08-07 8:38:12 PM  

atlantic_lotion: someone educate me. there's tons of controversy over using the a-bomb, but i dont get how it's fundamentally different than other tactics used to kill civilians. the firebombing of tokyo killed 100,000 but we dont honor the anniversary, make tons of documentaries, and write tons of books about the ethics of it. war is hell. why does the particular type of hell matter so much


Except most Americans don't realize that Japan had been frantically trying to surrender to the Allies for months before Hiroshima. The only thing they asked was that the Emperor remain the emperor. That's it. The US refused.

The bombs were dropped. Japan formally surrendered. The US let the Emperor remain the emperor. So what was gained?

(Little known fact: both Eisenhower and MacCarthur opposed dropping the bombs)
 
Begoggle
2020-08-07 8:38:48 PM  

atlantic_lotion: someone educate me. there's tons of controversy over using the a-bomb, but i dont get how it's fundamentally different than other tactics used to kill civilians. the firebombing of tokyo killed 100,000 but we dont honor the anniversary, make tons of documentaries, and write tons of books about the ethics of it. war is hell. why does the particular type of hell matter so much


Nobody's ever said that before.
 
the voice of raisin
2020-08-07 8:39:54 PM  

stuffy: I love it when people who were not even tickling their daddy's pants. Start second guessing people decisions.


like The Trail of Tears or Holocaust

/right?
 
Corn_Fed
2020-08-07 8:40:13 PM  

atlantic_lotion: someone educate me. there's tons of controversy over using the a-bomb, but i dont get how it's fundamentally different than other tactics used to kill civilians. the firebombing of tokyo killed 100,000 but we dont honor the anniversary, make tons of documentaries, and write tons of books about the ethics of it. war is hell. why does the particular type of hell matter so much


A single "mega-weapon" always seems more scary than an entire campaign. It's perception.
 
Lsherm [TotalFark]
2020-08-07 8:40:32 PM  

Somacandra: The best account of the reasons the bomb was ultimately built and used--as a political tool by Sec. of State James F. Byrnes for scaring the Soviets away from Europe, not militarily conquering Japan. Japan surrendered under the same terms as it had been seeking for months, if not at least a year. And they didn't surrender at all until the Red Army arrived to threaten a ground invasion. Also covers how the myth of the bomb's success pushed by the national security establishment came to overtake early military commanders' almost complete disapproval of its use at the time. Most thorough sourcing in a history book of the times, including the use of Sec of War Henry L. Stimson's diary. I highly recommend it to all.


I've purchased the book on your recommendation, but all of that is an oversimplification of the Japanese surrender. Japan did not surrender under the same terms it had been seeking for months - Emperor Hirohito had to intervene to make the military accept a surrender that did not include the primacy of the Emperor. The Soviets declared war against Japan two days after Hiroshima (one day before Nagasaki). The Soviets also invaded a Japanese territory hours before the Nagasaki bomb was dropped.

Like most historical events, several moving parts at once aligned so the US can't say the bombs ended the war definitively. Neither can one say that a sudden imminent threat of Soviet invasion, between the first and second bomb, was the definitive cause. In reality, all of those events undoubtedly factored into Hirohito's decision to surrender. They were additive.

The bomb certainly served a purpose as a warning to the new Soviet Union. It also served a purpose as a warning to Japan at the time. The US had one very big stone and two birds.

/that Carly Simon song was actually about me
 
FleshFlapps
2020-08-07 8:42:16 PM  
I figured we just needed a big-dick move and that was the biggest dick move we could muster
 
johnny_vegas [TotalFark]
2020-08-07 8:44:05 PM  

rcain: Somacandra: [Fark user image image 379x606]
The best account of the reasons the bomb was ultimately built and used--as a political tool by Sec. of State James F. Byrnes for scaring the Soviets away from Europe, not militarily conquering Japan. Japan surrendered under the same terms as it had been seeking for months, if not at least a year. And they didn't surrender at all until the Red Army arrived to threaten a ground invasion. Also covers how the myth of the bomb's success pushed by the national security establishment came to overtake early military commanders' almost complete disapproval of its use at the time. Most thorough sourcing in a history book of the times, including the use of Sec of War Henry L. Stimson's diary. I highly recommend it to all.

All of that was covered decently enough in Oliver Stone's "untold history of the United States" ... which really makes us out to be the gaggle of racist rapists and pillagers we truly are

How many democracies have we actually created? How many democracies have we destroyed? How many nations have we brought death and tyranny to because they weren't white and had resources our industrialists wanted?

A very good argument for the rest of the world to unite against the true evil on this earth. Because in a couple decades, the racist, hate-filled, willfully ignorant and utterly subhuman MAGAt trash will be the typical American


lol
 
the voice of raisin
2020-08-07 8:44:05 PM  

rcain: Somacandra: [Fark user image image 379x606]
The best account of the reasons the bomb was ultimately built and used--as a political tool by Sec. of State James F. Byrnes for scaring the Soviets away from Europe, not militarily conquering Japan. Japan surrendered under the same terms as it had been seeking for months, if not at least a year. And they didn't surrender at all until the Red Army arrived to threaten a ground invasion. Also covers how the myth of the bomb's success pushed by the national security establishment came to overtake early military commanders' almost complete disapproval of its use at the time. Most thorough sourcing in a history book of the times, including the use of Sec of War Henry L. Stimson's diary. I highly recommend it to all.

All of that was covered decently enough in Oliver Stone's "untold history of the United States" ... which really makes us out to be the gaggle of racist rapists and pillagers we truly are

How many democracies have we actually created? How many democracies have we destroyed? How many nations have we brought death and tyranny to because they weren't white and had resources our industrialists wanted?

A very good argument for the rest of the world to unite against the true evil on this earth. Because in a couple decades, the racist, hate-filled, willfully ignorant and utterly subhuman MAGAt trash will be the typical American


well, the Japanese did bomb Pearl Harbor.   AFAICT that's what officially got the US into The War.

Running supplies to the UK because the Germans invaded Poland and then France, and were teeing up an English Invasion (but not with music)
 
nitropissering
2020-08-07 8:44:22 PM  

atlantic_lotion: someone educate me. there's tons of controversy over using the a-bomb, but i dont get how it's fundamentally different than other tactics used to kill civilians. the firebombing of tokyo killed 100,000 but we dont honor the anniversary, make tons of documentaries, and write tons of books about the ethics of it. war is hell. why does the particular type of hell matter so much


Hawkeye: War isn't Hell. War is war, and Hell is Hell. And of the two, war is a lot worse.
Father Mulcahy: How do you figure that, Hawkeye?
Hawkeye: Easy, Father. Tell me, who goes to Hell?
Father Mulcahy: Sinners, I believe.
Hawkeye: Exactly. There are no innocent bystanders in Hell. War is chock full of them - little kids, cripples, old ladies. In fact, except for some of the brass, almost everybody involved is an innocent bystander.
 
Lsherm [TotalFark]
2020-08-07 8:44:37 PM  

Corn_Fed: The US let the Emperor remain the emperor. So what was gained?


He was stripped of governmental power, officially, in 1947. He was still Emperor, but his power was not official.
 
Daer21
2020-08-07 8:45:46 PM  

Lsherm: Somacandra: The best account of the reasons the bomb was ultimately built and used--as a political tool by Sec. of State James F. Byrnes for scaring the Soviets away from Europe, not militarily conquering Japan. Japan surrendered under the same terms as it had been seeking for months, if not at least a year. And they didn't surrender at all until the Red Army arrived to threaten a ground invasion. Also covers how the myth of the bomb's success pushed by the national security establishment came to overtake early military commanders' almost complete disapproval of its use at the time. Most thorough sourcing in a history book of the times, including the use of Sec of War Henry L. Stimson's diary. I highly recommend it to all.

I've purchased the book on your recommendation, but all of that is an oversimplification of the Japanese surrender. Japan did not surrender under the same terms it had been seeking for months - Emperor Hirohito had to intervene to make the military accept a surrender that did not include the primacy of the Emperor. The Soviets declared war against Japan two days after Hiroshima (one day before Nagasaki). The Soviets also invaded a Japanese territory hours before the Nagasaki bomb was dropped.

Like most historical events, several moving parts at once aligned so the US can't say the bombs ended the war definitively. Neither can one say that a sudden imminent threat of Soviet invasion, between the first and second bomb, was the definitive cause. In reality, all of those events undoubtedly factored into Hirohito's decision to surrender. They were additive.

The bomb certainly served a purpose as a warning to the new Soviet Union. It also served a purpose as a warning to Japan at the time. The US had one very big stone and two birds.


The Japanese started a war with America but were terrified of the USSR. The soviets knew how to deal with emporers properly. America should have let them.
 
links136
2020-08-07 8:46:07 PM  

Corn_Fed: atlantic_lotion: someone educate me. there's tons of controversy over using the a-bomb, but i dont get how it's fundamentally different than other tactics used to kill civilians. the firebombing of tokyo killed 100,000 but we dont honor the anniversary, make tons of documentaries, and write tons of books about the ethics of it. war is hell. why does the particular type of hell matter so much

Except most Americans don't realize that Japan had been frantically trying to surrender to the Allies for months before Hiroshima. The only thing they asked was that the Emperor remain the emperor. That's it. The US refused.

The bombs were dropped. Japan formally surrendered. The US let the Emperor remain the emperor. So what was gained?

(Little known fact: both Eisenhower and MacCarthur opposed dropping the bombs)


I don't think any other tactic use to kill over civilians can so readily be used to also kill all yours.  The level of power is so high, that the mere threat causes war to stop.

I mean really hard to compare what just casually happens in Beruit now to swords and setting fire to towns.

On another sense, the A-bomb can be used as a threat to enforce the collection of debts, which used to be the gun.  So then you'd have to wonder how enforcing slavery because of a debt used to enforce slavery, through means of complete destruction, or the threat there of, is different than just actually enslaving someone, depending on the terms of course.

The A-bomb therefore can replace the whip, which then turns it into "so whats so bad about using a whip to whip a slave? It's tradition"
 
Red Shirt Blues
2020-08-07 8:47:14 PM  

Somacandra: [Fark user image 379x606]

The best account of the reasons the bomb was ultimately built and used--as a political tool by Sec. of State James F. Byrnes for scaring the Soviets away from Europe, not militarily conquering Japan. Japan surrendered under the same terms as it had been seeking for months, if not at least a year. And they didn't surrender at all until the Red Army arrived to threaten a ground invasion. Also covers how the myth of the bomb's success pushed by the national security establishment came to overtake early military commanders' almost complete disapproval of its use at the time. Most thorough sourcing in a history book of the times, including the use of Sec of War Henry L. Stimson's diary. I highly recommend it to all.


That book has been debunked. So has Alperovitz. He lied and truncated quotes. His work has pretty much been dismissed. Japan had not been seeking surrender. You sound purposefully ignorant. They wanted to end the war yes. They wanted to keep the emperor with his mandate, no US occupation, no war crimes trials, wanted to keep Manchuria as well as disarm themselves. Old Gar lead the revisionists on this but since the release of the Ultra intercepts most of his arguments were found to be unsound or fabricated. Try Edward Drea, Richard Frank or Robert Maddox who used facts gleaned after the Ultra documents were declassified. Then check the original publication date of your "best" book,  Even his take on Byrnes, author Robert Maddox found that he was twisting quotes or arranging and parsing things to fit his narrative. Trotting out Alperovitz's book as an argument is like quoting the Bible to defend religion.
 
UNC_Samurai
2020-08-07 8:47:50 PM  
media-amazon.comView Full Size

Except there was a decision, and it was predicated on the costs of invasion in terms of manpower and national war weariness - not to "warn the Russians".
 
mrmopar5287 [TotalFark]
2020-08-07 8:50:13 PM  

FleshFlapps: I figured we just needed a big-dick move and that was the biggest dick move we could muster


Plus, we spent over $5 billion ($2 billion on the bomb, $3 billion on the B-29 to deliver the bomb; $66 billion in modern dollars) so that investment wasn't going to be made for us to just not use it a couple times...
 
the voice of raisin
2020-08-07 8:50:42 PM  

atlantic_lotion: someone educate me. there's tons of controversy over using the a-bomb, but i dont get how it's fundamentally different than other tactics used to kill civilians. the firebombing of tokyo killed 100,000 but we dont honor the anniversary, make tons of documentaries, and write tons of books about the ethics of it. war is hell. why does the particular type of hell matter so much


I think it's the scale.  if 1 "small" bomb could destroy a city, then if they had used the same number or even half of nuclear bombs, there would still be no Tokyo today.
 
links136
2020-08-07 8:50:51 PM  

nitropissering: atlantic_lotion: someone educate me. there's tons of controversy over using the a-bomb, but i dont get how it's fundamentally different than other tactics used to kill civilians. the firebombing of tokyo killed 100,000 but we dont honor the anniversary, make tons of documentaries, and write tons of books about the ethics of it. war is hell. why does the particular type of hell matter so much

Hawkeye: War isn't Hell. War is war, and Hell is Hell. And of the two, war is a lot worse.
Father Mulcahy: How do you figure that, Hawkeye?
Hawkeye: Easy, Father. Tell me, who goes to Hell?
Father Mulcahy: Sinners, I believe.
Hawkeye: Exactly. There are no innocent bystanders in Hell. War is chock full of them - little kids, cripples, old ladies. In fact, except for some of the brass, almost everybody involved is an innocent bystander.


You can use poor people but into debt because of poor harvests, to pay off said debt by sending them off to kill each other in a bid for yourself, sitting far away usually, to gain more for yourself.

Similarly, it can be hard to enslave your neighbor, if his entire family shows up at your house to kill you.  However, by force you can kidnap someone, take them thousands of miles away where no one could care about who they are, just that they're different, and now buy and sell them with no fear of invasion.

Since soldiers had to feed themselves, while being paid as mercenaries, who then would do so by killing everyone.  Not very honorable is it.
 
mrmopar5287 [TotalFark]
2020-08-07 8:52:01 PM  

FleshFlapps: I figured we just needed a big-dick move and that was the biggest dick move we could muster


We also had thing thing similar to Josef Mengele and the Japanese Unit 731 where we wanted to experiment to see the effects of the bomb, so we picked a couple cities to try it out and study the aftermath.
 
trialpha
2020-08-07 8:52:28 PM  

rcain: All of that was covered decently enough in Oliver Stone's "untold history of the United States" ... which really makes us out to be the gaggle of racist rapists and pillagers we truly are


If you want real fun.... Japan was for hundreds of years a closed country minding its own business. What caused them to go batshiat insane and start militarizing / brutalizing neighboring countries?

Admiral Perry and his black fleet, forcing Japan to open its borders and sign terrible treaties. Americans.
 
mrmopar5287 [TotalFark]
2020-08-07 8:52:59 PM  

UNC_Samurai: Except there was a decision, and it was predicated on the costs of invasion in terms of manpower and national war weariness - not to "warn the Russians".


whynotboth.jpg
 
sinko swimo
2020-08-07 8:52:59 PM  

atlantic_lotion: someone educate me. there's tons of controversy over using the a-bomb, but i dont get how it's fundamentally different than other tactics used to kill civilians. the firebombing of tokyo killed 100,000 but we dont honor the anniversary, make tons of documentaries, and write tons of books about the ethics of it. war is hell. why does the particular type of hell matter so much


IMHO it's not so much honoring the anniversary - but indeed those who suffered and died should be honored; it's more the 'murican press love of bad, horrible, tragic, oh my god i can't believe this style news. many civilized first world nations do not allow their press to be wholesale purveyors of information that makes you want to slit your wrists. hopefully some day we too will have an abundance of coverage focusing on the nice news, and serial killers, murders, rapists and gang bangers names won't be mentioned.
 
Ishkur [OhFark]
2020-08-07 8:53:01 PM  

atlantic_lotion: someone educate me. there's tons of controversy over using the a-bomb, but i dont get how it's fundamentally different than other tactics used to kill civilians. the firebombing of tokyo killed 100,000 but we dont honor the anniversary, make tons of documentaries, and write tons of books about the ethics of it. war is hell. why does the particular type of hell matter so much


Because annihilating a city in 8 seconds has somewhat of a different psychological effect than annihilating a city in 8 hours.
 
BgJonson79
2020-08-07 8:53:45 PM  

trialpha: rcain: All of that was covered decently enough in Oliver Stone's "untold history of the United States" ... which really makes us out to be the gaggle of racist rapists and pillagers we truly are

If you want real fun.... Japan was for hundreds of years a closed country minding its own business. What caused them to go batshiat insane and start militarizing / brutalizing neighboring countries?

Admiral Perry and his black fleet, forcing Japan to open its borders and sign terrible treaties. Americans.


Sounds like Japanese xenophobia to me.
 
toraque [TotalFark] [OhFark]
2020-08-07 8:55:50 PM  

rcain: atlantic_lotion: someone educate me. there's tons of controversy over using the a-bomb, but i dont get how it's fundamentally different than other tactics used to kill civilians. the firebombing of tokyo killed 100,000 but we dont honor the anniversary, make tons of documentaries, and write tons of books about the ethics of it. war is hell. why does the particular type of hell matter so much

Because ever since then, the US has held a gun to the world's head. You think the fact that we've racked up massive debts and don't even bother to have a plan on paying them off is an accident? We have the gun, go ahead and try to make us pay? Oh what are you going to do? Default the US and give us the junk rating we deserve? What will that do to your economy? And if we do go down in flames, you think we aren't vicious and spiteful enough to launch our nukes to fark everyone else up too?

Our NATO Allies have been happy enough at one point go along with the US and our shared western culture vs let Stalin who they were scared would wipe out half the population and anyone with an IQ over 80

But now it's time that they looked good and hard and asked if Trump and self-serving, nationalistic and overtly racist American politics crafted by the far right are really any better than siding with Russia and China, or that perhaps they should distance themselves from both sides and start looking to protecting themselves and standing up against the very real and scary threats posed by US and Chinese ambitions


This post will not read as well in the hard light of morning when you sober up, but this is what Fark is for. It's okay, we all drunkenly post dumb shiat. Just make sure you drink a bunch of water and take some aspirin before you pass out.  Trust me on this one.

In the morning, make a huge breakfast full of carbs and grease, and then after that and a nap, you'll be fine and ready to post here some more.  I've been here, I know the ground, and I feel for you.

Also, if the walls start moving and talking to you?  Just ignore them, that's the booze and they don't have anything good to say anyway.
 
nitropissering
2020-08-07 8:57:13 PM  

mrmopar5287: FleshFlapps: I figured we just needed a big-dick move and that was the biggest dick move we could muster

Plus, we spent over $5 billion ($2 billion on the bomb, $3 billion on the B-29 to deliver the bomb; $66 billion in modern dollars) so that investment wasn't going to be made for us to just not use it a couple times...


Reminds me of this:

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
Sexy Jesus
2020-08-07 8:57:42 PM  

the voice of raisin: rcain: Somacandra: [Fark user image image 379x606]
The best account of the reasons the bomb was ultimately built and used--as a political tool by Sec. of State James F. Byrnes for scaring the Soviets away from Europe, not militarily conquering Japan. Japan surrendered under the same terms as it had been seeking for months, if not at least a year. And they didn't surrender at all until the Red Army arrived to threaten a ground invasion. Also covers how the myth of the bomb's success pushed by the national security establishment came to overtake early military commanders' almost complete disapproval of its use at the time. Most thorough sourcing in a history book of the times, including the use of Sec of War Henry L. Stimson's diary. I highly recommend it to all.

All of that was covered decently enough in Oliver Stone's "untold history of the United States" ... which really makes us out to be the gaggle of racist rapists and pillagers we truly are

How many democracies have we actually created? How many democracies have we destroyed? How many nations have we brought death and tyranny to because they weren't white and had resources our industrialists wanted?

A very good argument for the rest of the world to unite against the true evil on this earth. Because in a couple decades, the racist, hate-filled, willfully ignorant and utterly subhuman MAGAt trash will be the typical American

well, the Japanese did bomb Pearl Harbor.   AFAICT that's what officially got the US into The War.

Running supplies to the UK because the Germans invaded Poland and then France, and were teeing up an English Invasion (but not with music)


Not true. The Nazis were big into Wagner.
 
the voice of raisin
2020-08-07 8:58:53 PM  

trialpha: rcain: All of that was covered decently enough in Oliver Stone's "untold history of the United States" ... which really makes us out to be the gaggle of racist rapists and pillagers we truly are

If you want real fun.... Japan was for hundreds of years a closed country minding its own business. What caused them to go batshiat insane and start militarizing / brutalizing neighboring countries?

Admiral Perry and his black fleet, forcing Japan to open its borders and sign terrible treaties. Americans.


a variation on Krikket?

/apologies to Douglas Adams
 
Closed_Minded_Bastage
2020-08-07 9:01:52 PM  
When he turned 18, my dad had joined the US Navy just before the war ended and he fully expected to get assigned to a warzone, he was still in training in August '45. His mood about his future greatly improved after VJ day and the chances of me being born improved by a few percentage points.

Yea randomness.
 
Daer21
2020-08-07 9:02:03 PM  

BgJonson79: trialpha: rcain: All of that was covered decently enough in Oliver Stone's "untold history of the United States" ... which really makes us out to be the gaggle of racist rapists and pillagers we truly are

If you want real fun.... Japan was for hundreds of years a closed country minding its own business. What caused them to go batshiat insane and start militarizing / brutalizing neighboring countries?

Admiral Perry and his black fleet, forcing Japan to open its borders and sign terrible treaties. Americans.

Sounds like Japanese xenophobia to me.


They would put shipwrecked sailors in zoos, torture them to death for sport, or eat them. Thats not American propaganda, thats imperial records.
 
UNC_Samurai
2020-08-07 9:02:19 PM  

mrmopar5287: UNC_Samurai: Except there was a decision, and it was predicated on the costs of invasion in terms of manpower and national war weariness - not to "warn the Russians".

whynotboth.jpg


Because that's one of the things Giancreco specifically disproves in the book.  The Truman(FDR) administration was still making back-door Lend-Lease deals and stockpiling supplies to help the Russians invade Manchuria well into August.  They were concerned far more about Japanese surrender than any post-war posturing in the Pacific.

/And if the Americans had really been concerned with the Soviets, they would have done a better job preparing the Chinese Nationalists in the inevitable resumption of the civil war against the Communists.
 
the voice of raisin
2020-08-07 9:02:52 PM  

Sexy Jesus: the voice of raisin: rcain: Somacandra: [Fark user image image 379x606]
The best account of the reasons the bomb was ultimately built and used--as a political tool by Sec. of State James F. Byrnes for scaring the Soviets away from Europe, not militarily conquering Japan. Japan surrendered under the same terms as it had been seeking for months, if not at least a year. And they didn't surrender at all until the Red Army arrived to threaten a ground invasion. Also covers how the myth of the bomb's success pushed by the national security establishment came to overtake early military commanders' almost complete disapproval of its use at the time. Most thorough sourcing in a history book of the times, including the use of Sec of War Henry L. Stimson's diary. I highly recommend it to all.

All of that was covered decently enough in Oliver Stone's "untold history of the United States" ... which really makes us out to be the gaggle of racist rapists and pillagers we truly are

How many democracies have we actually created? How many democracies have we destroyed? How many nations have we brought death and tyranny to because they weren't white and had resources our industrialists wanted?

A very good argument for the rest of the world to unite against the true evil on this earth. Because in a couple decades, the racist, hate-filled, willfully ignorant and utterly subhuman MAGAt trash will be the typical American

well, the Japanese did bomb Pearl Harbor.   AFAICT that's what officially got the US into The War.

Running supplies to the UK because the Germans invaded Poland and then France, and were teeing up an English Invasion (but not with music)

Not true. The Nazis were big into Wagner.


yeah but the English Invasion has The Who, The Rolling Stones, The Beatles, etc

/you cant Twist and Shout to Wagner
//or maybe I'm not trying hard enough

/Bazinga!
 
Fano
2020-08-07 9:07:28 PM  

Weatherkiss: I was always under the impression that we used the bomb on Japan because we had just finished a harrowing campaign in Europe and we were not in the mood for a pyrhhic victory from a ground invasion of the Japanese mainland where civilians were ready to fight to the death to the tune of a few hundred thousand American casualties.


Naw, that's Old Man Propaganda thinking! Invading Japan was going to be super easy, barely an inconvenience! They were just itching to hear the words from the God Emperor to stand down once we just asked politely but instead we got a hard on for showing Uncle Joe just how big our dicks were despite he was also just minding his business winning all the wars singlehandedly.
 
ryant123
2020-08-07 9:07:43 PM  

Lsherm: Somacandra: The best account of the reasons the bomb was ultimately built and used--as a political tool by Sec. of State James F. Byrnes for scaring the Soviets away from Europe, not militarily conquering Japan. Japan surrendered under the same terms as it had been seeking for months, if not at least a year. And they didn't surrender at all until the Red Army arrived to threaten a ground invasion. Also covers how the myth of the bomb's success pushed by the national security establishment came to overtake early military commanders' almost complete disapproval of its use at the time. Most thorough sourcing in a history book of the times, including the use of Sec of War Henry L. Stimson's diary. I highly recommend it to all.

I've purchased the book on your recommendation, but all of that is an oversimplification of the Japanese surrender. Japan did not surrender under the same terms it had been seeking for months - Emperor Hirohito had to intervene to make the military accept a surrender that did not include the primacy of the Emperor. The Soviets declared war against Japan two days after Hiroshima (one day before Nagasaki). The Soviets also invaded a Japanese territory hours before the Nagasaki bomb was dropped.

Like most historical events, several moving parts at once aligned so the US can't say the bombs ended the war definitively. Neither can one say that a sudden imminent threat of Soviet invasion, between the first and second bomb, was the definitive cause. In reality, all of those events undoubtedly factored into Hirohito's decision to surrender. They were additive.

The bomb certainly served a purpose as a warning to the new Soviet Union. It also served a purpose as a warning to Japan at the time. The US had one very big stone and two birds.


Thank you. You saved me from having to write this exact same post.
 
adamatari
2020-08-07 9:08:23 PM  

Lsherm: Corn_Fed: The US let the Emperor remain the emperor. So what was gained?

He was stripped of governmental power, officially, in 1947. He was still Emperor, but his power was not official.


Officially a "symbol of the state" and explicitly barred from having a role in government. Even the emperor's position is stated as "derived from the will of the people, who are soverign".

TBH this is closer to the historical norm. Every time since probably the Heian period when an emperor has had real power in Japan, a horrible war has broken out. The emperor has been very weak for most of the time there have been emperors. They fill a ceremonial role and perform some Shinto rites.

This is a HUGE break from what Japan was during WWII, not a minor one. Shinto was disestablished as a state religion, the military was reorganized into a self-defense force and until very recently formally barred from and sort of military activity outside of strict self defense, I can go on. It was a huge thing. Japan also lost all overseas territory including Okinawa.

The bomb was evil, but war is evil. An invasion would have killed many more civilians, and surrender was nearly impossibly under the fanatical military. The surrender speech had to be smuggled out of the palace as it was.
 
Voiceofreason01
2020-08-07 9:11:17 PM  
This idea that the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan was inevitable, accidental or was done casually is a gross misunderstanding of history that does a disserve to both Americans and the Japanese.
 
boozehat
2020-08-07 9:11:23 PM  

FleshFlapps: I figured we just needed a big-dick move and that was the biggest dick move we could muster



Fark user imageView Full Size
 
WTP 2
2020-08-07 9:12:33 PM  
many, many years ago we fought a was until there was no enemy left.
warriors, men, boys  women, girls, babies were all killed or made slaves.
ahhh, the good old days....

we try and only hurt/kill the enemy, but this was a different place and time.
no one today should think they know what the time was like, almost all were not even born.

/had soup for breakfast
 
atlantic_lotion
2020-08-07 9:14:49 PM  

Ishkur: atlantic_lotion: someone educate me. there's tons of controversy over using the a-bomb, but i dont get how it's fundamentally different than other tactics used to kill civilians. the firebombing of tokyo killed 100,000 but we dont honor the anniversary, make tons of documentaries, and write tons of books about the ethics of it. war is hell. why does the particular type of hell matter so much

Because annihilating a city in 8 seconds has somewhat of a different psychological effect than annihilating a city in 8 hours.


imo 8 seconds sounds a lot better to me
 
BgJonson79
2020-08-07 9:15:02 PM  

rcain: the voice of raisin: rcain: Somacandra: [Fark user image image 379x606]
The best account of the reasons the bomb was ultimately built and used--as a political tool by Sec. of State James F. Byrnes for scaring the Soviets away from Europe, not militarily conquering Japan. Japan surrendered under the same terms as it had been seeking for months, if not at least a year. And they didn't surrender at all until the Red Army arrived to threaten a ground invasion. Also covers how the myth of the bomb's success pushed by the national security establishment came to overtake early military commanders' almost complete disapproval of its use at the time. Most thorough sourcing in a history book of the times, including the use of Sec of War Henry L. Stimson's diary. I highly recommend it to all.

All of that was covered decently enough in Oliver Stone's "untold history of the United States" ... which really makes us out to be the gaggle of racist rapists and pillagers we truly are

How many democracies have we actually created? How many democracies have we destroyed? How many nations have we brought death and tyranny to because they weren't white and had resources our industrialists wanted?

A very good argument for the rest of the world to unite against the true evil on this earth. Because in a couple decades, the racist, hate-filled, willfully ignorant and utterly subhuman MAGAt trash will be the typical American

well, the Japanese did bomb Pearl Harbor.   AFAICT that's what officially got the US into The War.

Running supplies to the UK because the Germans invaded Poland and then France, and were teeing up an English Invasion (but not with music)

I mentioned not one damn thing about why we entered WWII. And our unforgivable mistreatment of non-white nations on the behalf of wealthy industrialists started well before then

Watch "Untold History of the United States" if you haven't already. It does a good job of recounting the Banana Wars and the shiat we pulled in Latin and South America well before WWII and well before our forcing democracy and capitalism throughout Asia and the Oil Wars in the Middle East - and should serve as a primer for what we can expect "the American Good Guys" to perpetrate around the world in the upcoming Water Wars as sea levels rise and big agriculture deplete the ground water supplies now chiefly owned by CocaCola, PepsiCo and Nestle

And of course, if you're really interested in seeing just what a "shining beacon of freedom and liberty around the world" the US has actually been you should pick up a copy of War Is A Racket by Smedley Butler, our most decorated soldier ever and greatest authority on US military furthering the ambitions of greedy capitalists across the globe and the great cost in lives and freedoms it has had solely for the benefit of a very few very white Americans at the expense of both non-whites we slaughtered and the US Troops who laid down their lives


You're really making my Friday evening entertaining. Keep going!
 
atlantic_lotion
2020-08-07 9:15:24 PM  

links136: nitropissering: atlantic_lotion: someone educate me. there's tons of controversy over using the a-bomb, but i dont get how it's fundamentally different than other tactics used to kill civilians. the firebombing of tokyo killed 100,000 but we dont honor the anniversary, make tons of documentaries, and write tons of books about the ethics of it. war is hell. why does the particular type of hell matter so much

Hawkeye: War isn't Hell. War is war, and Hell is Hell. And of the two, war is a lot worse.
Father Mulcahy: How do you figure that, Hawkeye?
Hawkeye: Easy, Father. Tell me, who goes to Hell?
Father Mulcahy: Sinners, I believe.
Hawkeye: Exactly. There are no innocent bystanders in Hell. War is chock full of them - little kids, cripples, old ladies. In fact, except for some of the brass, almost everybody involved is an innocent bystander.

You can use poor people but into debt because of poor harvests, to pay off said debt by sending them off to kill each other in a bid for yourself, sitting far away usually, to gain more for yourself.

Similarly, it can be hard to enslave your neighbor, if his entire family shows up at your house to kill you.  However, by force you can kidnap someone, take them thousands of miles away where no one could care about who they are, just that they're different, and now buy and sell them with no fear of invasion.

Since soldiers had to feed themselves, while being paid as mercenaries, who then would do so by killing everyone.  Not very honorable is it.


this made me think a lot
 
jso2897 [TotalFark]
2020-08-07 9:17:14 PM  
It is what it is.
 
Sean VasDeferens
2020-08-07 9:18:37 PM  
Ahh Slate, bless your little heart.
 
Displayed 50 of 152 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Redisplay/refresh comments
This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

Want the rest of the Farking story? Try

TotalFark

More threads. More community. More Farking.

learn more | sign up
On Twitter

  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.