this post was submitted on 17 Aug 2025
631 points (93.8% liked)
memes
16890 readers
3573 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads/AI Slop
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.
A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
In the last days of WW2, the Japanese military were getting children to make sharpened bamboo spears and training those children to attack American soldiers on sight. The elderly and women were told that they should kill themselves before potentially coming under American control.
The Japanese civilian population had been indoctrinated into the belief that western soldiers were absolute monsters who would carry out unspeakable acts on them should they become prisoners (ironic considering the IJA/Ns actions during the conflict).
In the battle of Saipan, hundreds of mothers leapt from cliffs with their babies in their arms to evade capture, men would slit their children's throats and booby trapped the bodies to injure Americans and then themselves fought relentlessly, before mostly killing themselves or being killed to prevent capture.
The level of blood shed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was unprecedented but it did in fact save untold Japanese civilian and American soldiers' lives.
Crucially, even after the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima Japanese High Command still refused to surrender.
*edit: all you 4edgy5me America Bad commenters really need to do some reading about Japanese atrocities during the Pacific War here are some suggestions:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanjing_Massacre
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhejiang-Jiangxi_campaign
I wonder when, if ever, this narrative will finally be laid to rest. Perhaps, as long as the US military exists as a globe-spanning hegemon, we will always have to hear some version of this story.
No contemporary historian or political scientist takes this view for granted. It is one of many, and I encourage you to read about more than the wikipedia articles about Japanese atrocities. All militaries commit attocities. This is not the point.
The argument you offer is that the United States had a moral imperative to invade and occupy the Japanese home islands. What is the justification for this? Why would this have been necessary? Everyone who has seriously studied the history knows that the Soviet Union was preparing to invade Japan and its leadership was preparing to surrender in one form or another. The bombs were dropped because the US wanted to ensure that they were the negotiating party and occupying power.
The justification to avoid further violence is extremely cynical. Nowhere in the rules of war does it say that the only way to end a conflict is to utterly annihilate your oppnent. That rule was invented by expansionist empires. You can go back to the history of Rome's wars with Greece to see this type of logic (or lack thereof) play out. It is a message. It says that we are not your equal and we will not broker any deals on equal footing. We are your hegemon and we will dictate the terms. And then we'll blame you for any atrocities we commit, and everyone will know that we did what we did in the name of peace and justice.
Ironically I can even apply this thinking to matches of the Civilization game. In general I don't do war if I can avoid it, I enjoy just expanding my own country and trying to focus on science and culture. But whenever some country declared war on me, I would defend myself and then move on to invade the aggressor, because I saw conquest as the only way to "win" a war. And then I would think "it's so unfair that every other country now hate me just because I took some cities from the country that attacked me out of the blue".
Then one day I lost some war and the other country didn't take any of my cities. They declared war not because they wanted to conquer me militarily, but because they wanted to stop me from dominating the world in other ways (culturally for example - something I saw as pacific but that also allowed me to win the match and therefore caused others to lose)
The Japanese attacked and brought the USA into the second world war, I mean you seem to forget that.
And so therefore it had to carry out a land invasion? Can you explain why this necessarily follows?
The Soviet Union had already invaded Manchuria and annihilated the Kwantung Army. We can argue tit for tat about which part of the final days of the Pacific War contributed the most to the final surrender of Japan. It's clear though that no single part of that was enough and it was the combination of the firebombing of Tokyo and Osaka, the destruction of the remaining IJN fleet strength at the Battle of Tsushima, the Soviets invading Manchuria, Korea and the Northern Islands, and the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Although there are records of some of the civilian government campaigning Hirohito and Koiso for unconditional surrender, the main war cabinet still refused and preferred the path of a final confrontation.
I think it's impossible to say if the atom bombs hadn't been dropped whether they would have in fact surrendered, given that all the other things listed above were true after Hiroshima but before Nagasaki and they still were arguing for a negotiated settlement when no opposing force (USA, Commonwealth or Soviet Union) were prepared to accept anything less than an unconditional surrender.
Also, if you want more details on the extraordinary level of depravity by Japanese soldiers during the Second Dino-Japanese War and the wider World War 2 I can recommend reading Rape of Nanking by Iris Chang, Japan's Infamous Unit 731 by Hal Gold and Hidden Horrors by Yuki Tanaka, all of which contain first hand accounts and then you can try comparing and contrasting by accounts of those carried out by Allied forces in the conflict and give me your false equivalence then.
There's no false equivalence. There is no equivalence at all. There's absolutely no point trying to figure out the most atrocitiest world power. Atrocities do not justify further atrocities.
In terms of whether the bombings were justified or not, I don't think it's impossible to say. Same with the firebombings, which were carried out under false pretenses of total warfare hypotheses that were later disproven.
There was talk of doing a nuclear demonstration in Tokyo harbor before the decision to annihilate two cities was undertaken. Yes, these were decisions made with limited information and lack of 20:20 hindsight, but that doesn't mean they weren't war crimes or that the people who made them aren't mass murderers. This kind of zero-sum my atrocities vs. your atrocities thinking is an intellectual dead end, but it's great for justifying American exceptionalism.
We nuked them twice after carrying out a campaign of what we cozily referred to as "moral bombing", where we targeted civilian populations to kill the families of soldiers.
We ARE absolute monsters.
The only fair way to solve this is going to be for someone to nuke us for nuking Japan, then someone needs to nuke whomever nukes us, etc...until everyone gets nuked. Then we can get along.
I mean Japan and the US have a pretty solid relationship now, it's just internet weirdos who can't get along, which is probably why a lot of us are on the internet in the first place.
Fash support fash.
Bombing Japan = good?
When the US nuked Japan, almost everyone in my homeland (China) knows what's coming next. It maked the end of a terrible age of war, and era of subjugation by inperialists. The japaneese invaders are soon gonna be gone. It was a huge relief.
Then when the news of japan's surrender hits the news, there was celebrations throughout China. And I'm sure those in Korea and various Southeast Asian countries would also be celebrating that.
It would've taken months and possibly years for the US to do a non-nuclear attack of japan, and that would've allowed them to continue doing massacres across Asia. Civillians shouldn't have to die for the crime of their government, but there were not many options, and this was the lesser evil.
As someone from the country that's been conquered by japan: absolutely yes.
It's literally the trolley problem writ large. Do you kill a few hundred thousand civilians to prevent the deaths of probably several million.
I used to think along the lines of this too until I visited the Hiroshima Peace Memorial where they tell you about all the ways the US min-maxed the bomb to kill as many people as possible and did it truly as an experiment.
Well, idk much about history and politics and war, so I'm just gonna trust 'Muricans claiming they need to bomb other countries to bring peace to the world
What a lazy and shitty comment.
You're right. I do sometimes put more effort into my comments, but this one was not one of those. I simply chose to inform of my lack of knowledge in the probably important fields needed to understand this event, and then said I'd trust 'Muricans speaking, pointing out the claim that the bombing was needed for peace
What part of @Denjin@feddit.uk's statement do you disagree with?
The Allies had just fought the Battle of Okinawa, the bloodiest battle of the Pacific Theater.
Have you ever even read any of the history of the proposed plan for the invasion of mainland Japan and the casualty estimates? How about the reasoning for opposing the Imperial Japanese Government?
Or Is this your opportunity to virtue signal to people on the internet by implying Americans are murderous pigs and the jApAnEsE dId NoThInG wRoNg?
Americans ***ARE ***murderous pigs, and we haven't changed in the decades since.
As I said, I don't know much about history, politics, and war.
Clearly not.
Poe's law.
Im context, against the Imperial Japanese Government, unfortunately, yes.
more like least path of resistance to peace.
Yes, when you grow up deep inside the imperial bubble.
Bombing Japan == horrific but better than the alternatives we had.
Though even then there were variables.
https://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2015/08/03/were-there-alternatives-to-the-atomic-bombings/
Sorry, but repeatedly posting a link to some blog doesn't justify murdering hundreds of thousands, probably millions, of people.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were very much the first stages of the Cold War pivot as the USSR declared war on Japan and took Manchuria and Korea from Japanese occupation.
Imperial Japan had hoped the USSR would arbitrate peace with the Allies as they had not fought or invaded, but the Soviets chose to declare war, sealing their fate.
Those Palestinian children were going to be used to populate the schools and hospitals so they can't be bombed. Better starve them.
Yeah and as we do, we fucked up their transition to a democratic state but in the process created a very unique nation
https://youtu.be/YzRWPGSaKDk
There are absolutely zero circumistances under which it is acceptable to bomb, let alone nuke, civilians.
So the US should've just allowed imperial japan to continue massacring my compatriots in China? Fuck that. Its sad that civillians had to get caught up in the death tolls, but I'm on the side of the US and the allies when it comes to WW2.
👍🏻