View Full Version : why the americans dropped the bomb on japan??
just something interesting i've spotted whilst browsing.
i had heard about some of the stuff that the japanese had been getting up to in asia and the sorrounds but it was not until i started actually looking properly that i suddenly started putting some pieces of the jigsaw together. (WWII)
may i suggest a quick search on "unit 731", look through wikipedia and the like, it is enlightening.
the outcome and end game on japan and its activities in asia ends in nagasaki and hiroshima and should be a lesson to be learnt for all parties that engage in war crimes. it western thought i'd say it was the goddess of divine retribution - nemesis - that visited.
for those of you too lazy to look up unit 731
the brief explanation is that japan was using biological warfare in ww2 against the civillian populace. scanning through the attrocities lit a light bulb up above my head. karmic justice. the indignities/ horrors metered out to the chinese/koreans was nemisis visiting japan bigtime. anyway look this stuff up - it is truely disturbing
Jim Colyer
10-19-2006, 07:05 AM
Japan brought the atomic bomb on themselves when they attacked Pearl Harbor.
MIIDAJ
10-22-2006, 11:02 PM
we could have beat them without dropping it but we had been working on it for a while plus it was a display of power to the rest of the world.
my original feelings were that japan was arrogant. it attacked foreign lands,killed, tortured its inhabitants and poisoned them in the name of expansionism. it was arrogant enough not to realise that were bigger bullies in the world with bigger guns and more men. when you've done this kind of shit for so long isn't there payback? i'm not condoning what happened to japan but what i am saying is that there is a karmic price to pay for such activities.
jonny2mad
10-23-2006, 09:34 AM
my father was getting ready to take part in the invasion of japan (he had already taken part in d-day) when they dropped the bombs .
if you look at the number of expected dead in a invasion of japan thats our and japanese dead those bombs saved lives, I think our expected dead would have been around 3 million.
what japanese dead would have been who knows, but they would have fought to the last man village by village street by street ,and I doubt that the non nuclear option would have been as good as the nuclear if you cared about lost of life or human suffering.
anyway if we had tried to invade very likely my old dad would have been killed and I wouldnt be here so Im not happy about , but feel in the circumstances the bombs were the right thing at the time , and thats not just for us but for the japanese
the americans had spent too much money and too much time not to use it.
they wanted to see what the bomb would do
there was no need to invade japan they could have just starved them to submission but by that time world opinion may have shifted to pity for the japanese despite their shennanigans in south asia. by dropping the bomb on them not too many people would shed a tear for them. as the japanese had experimented on civillians the americans experimented on the japanese. you have to remember the japanese were doing silly things like flouting the geneva convention, machine gunning of nurses, beheading of POW's , torture of POW's, charging into cities and killing the inhabitants. no one can do these things without some "blow back" either as an individual or a nation.
lankymidget
10-23-2006, 01:57 PM
As a nation?
An eye for an eye just creates a world full of one-eyed people.. Or nations..
I regard the dropping of the atomic bomb an atrocity in itself.. And now the US wants to have control over which countries possess Weapons of Mass Destruction... So that any time they choose to teach a country a lesson, it doesn't get attacked back..
Weren't the US army doing many of the things Japan did in World War II in Vietnam and Cambodia 20 years later?
Hmm..
jonny2mad
10-23-2006, 05:12 PM
how many people would have died if we had waited to "starve " japan into submission all our prisoners of war would have been killed , are you saying that would have been the better option .
there is no difference with using a nuclear bomb to destroy a city to what we were doing in germany and japan ,we were getting larger numbers of people killed with saturation bombing and creating firestorms than nukes .
if nuclear weapons didnt exist we could have just firestormed all those wood and paper japanese houses then used german nerve agent or gas ,then sent in infantry with flame throwers and killed most or all of the population of japan.
the use of nuclear weapons saved lives .
I know people who flamethrowered villages in burma, people would come out hands up and they would kill them because thats what the japanese would do and then they would detonate a bomb.
thats what real war is like its about staying alive ....and all this we shouldnt have dropped the bomb stuff is a load of nonsense
as i said before, i do not condone the actions of america
it is perfectly true japan could have been bombed conventionally by creating firestorms. atomic weapons weren't necessary. what i'm saying is that when it comes to payback, which one is more awesome a nuclear strike or a firestorm?
i'm examining the karmic angle.
lankymidget
10-24-2006, 01:06 PM
I was lead to believe that in war, a certain amount of civilian casualties was "acceptable".. Mistakes happen and are totally unavoidable.. Even the odd maniac loose cannon cannot be controlled by years of disciplined training..
But to TARGET civilians as a way of bringing a country to it's knees is as bad an atrocity as you can get.. Certainly as bad sytematically eradicating villages, towns and generations to make an ENEMY unable to wage war against you in future..
jonny2mad
10-24-2006, 08:22 PM
Well japan had targeted civillians in china, we and the germans had both targeted civilians .
Are you saying its worse to kill a hundred thousand civilians with nuclear bombs, than killing millions of people including millions of civilians in a full scale invasion of japan
WeeDMaN
10-26-2006, 07:48 PM
in my opinion, sometimes the only way to protect man is to destroy man. Dont blame america for a nucleur bomb when the other country provokes it. Its happened once and I garuntee it will happen again sometime soon. Other countrys seem to get this idea that America is such a bad country and so evil, theyr protecting thier own people jus like any other country would. I beleive the cause of war today is sheer jelousy. People attack this country because the people in it have a better life than them. but why attack and attempt to destroy it. I mean, nobody ever thought the Soviet union would fall, they thought it would be the global empire for another 50 years. yet 5 years after it fell, every country gets a turn to be an empire. Without War america will surely one day fall and not be the richest country anymore.
USA in decline
10-26-2006, 07:52 PM
Well Here It Goes = Save Lifes By Shortning The War Or Scaring The Hell Out Of The Russian Who Now Were Stronger Than The Germans In 1939. And You Can Bet The Russians Wanted The Whole European Continent.
problem was, was the russians had infiltrated the american sercret services and were probably following the making of the bomb closely, they also had sympathisers feeding them material. this is why they were able to duplicate the bomb so quickly and successfully. the chances are they already had the bomb at the same time as the usa, they just gave the americans the impression that they didn't have it. obviously the americans suspected that they did have the bomb, this is why they didn't take russia on after the war. if the americans were the only ones with the bomb they would have invaded russia, russia would have retaliated in kind and a heap of eggs would have been on the american governments face.
as an aside , the russians have the tendency to be aware of things but not show their hand. the russians in their time also had infiltrated the british secret service with various sympathisers, the americans complained about this. "spycatcher" a book banned by margaret thatcher suggested that the british spy chief (or one of them) was a russian spy. the russians infiltrated mainly through universities and gentlemens clubs like the masons.
guy, just were did you get the insane idea that america would have invaded russia after WWII if it didn't have the atomic bomb? Russia didn't have the atomic bomb at the end of WWII, they didn't develop it until later on. They did have spies and sympathisers in various countries, including in the manhatan project, but that just got them data. It took them time to compile it and make sense of it. After WWII, NO country was lookin for a war. The cold war was simple posturing between nations of comparable strength with differing views. The same sort of thing can be seen throughout history when you have 2 strong nations, you can go as far back as greece and persia or rome and crap, cant think of the name at the moment. But just because there is posturing doesn't mean that america wanted to invade russia, or vise versa, the posturing was to try and show that one was stonger than the other, and hence have more influence with other nations.
the americans and soviet russia were natural enemies. the cold war was an extension of ww2
even before the end of ww2 hitler was trying to play the two sides off each other, to secure his position. hitler had a potent weapon in his armoury , nerve agent, something the allies had no protection against, he could have won the war if he used it. he chose not to. why? simply because he thought the british had their own stockpile and the risks taken using it outweighed the perceived gains.
as for the atomic bomb i'm sure you will find that making one is an extemely difficult process. russias history of its nuclear weapons programme is one that has been given to us by them.
given america's enthusiasm for war thoughout its history and its hate for soviet russia, why did they not invade and take the russians on, unless they suspected the russians had their own bomb. since its inception america has rarely shown any restraint, the anamoly is where they choose not to wage war. they only pick fights (military confrontation) with people that they think they can defeat. the cold war was one where america was unsure of the outcome, hence no direct military confrontation. the russians? well they were interested in the revolution but that failed miserably on the back of self interest.
with the demise of the soviets came the american empire.
but getting back to main theme...
guy, you have a serious case of America hate, and need to read your history.
But back to the point, if you wonder about restraint, look at the calculations put into the decition to drop the bombs, the loss of life from the bombs isn't even a fifth of the projected casualties that would come from a direct invasion of the japanise home islands. And that's not even counting the calcualted loss on the American side. By droping the bombs, America insured that there would be a Japan after the war. Because if left to conventional wepons, every city in Japan would have been destroyed, all of their infrastrucure as well.
ok tell me about the american indians
hold that thought
lets get back to the original thought otherwise we'll get bogged down in the righteousness of american foreign policy.
my original ponderings were about japan and divine retribution? the original thread was more about the japanese, their actions in asia, the destruction they created. in this philosophy america would have simply been the tool of nemesis. can any individual or nation do so much and expect to get away without "blow back" aka divine retribution. being a site dominated by americans it is natural that the american angle will be fixated upon. if you have a quick squizzz at unit 731 you'll know what i'm going on about.
fountains of nay
12-08-2006, 03:51 PM
One thing you have to remember is that many Japanese soldiers didn't agree with what the country was asking them to do, but if they failed to obey, they would have been killed. There is an interesting comment made by a Japanese doctor who was involved in amputations of civilians etc. He knew it was wrong and it still haunts him to this day (he is now in his 80s), but he would have been killed if he had refused. You can find this article on the BBC website.
Very much like how Hitler managed to get so many people to join the Nazi regime.
Personally, I think it was wrong to bomb Hiroshima and Nagsaki. Yes, they bombed Pearl Harbour, but 2 wrongs don't make a right.
WharfRat
12-12-2006, 10:16 PM
because it saved a long war with japan and lots of american casualties and by dropping the bombs we didnt have to have russia involved with the war in the pacific, if the soviets were involved they would have been involved in determining the treaties afterwards and what not and we didnt want communism to spread anymore
also our president told the emperor of japan that something devastating was going to happen if he did not surrender by some deadline (i forget when) and he arrogantly refused, and it cost tens of thousands of lives before he finally did
evsride
12-14-2006, 03:14 AM
I lament the loss of life like all of you do. But when you look at the tough choices war puts on a nation and its leaders, I think that we did the right thing. It would be most wonderful if we didnt have a need even for a bullet much less a nuclear weapon. But thats not the reality of it. Japan should have read the writing on the wall as Germany and the other parts of the Axis fell and swallowed their pride and surrendered. Its all too bad. Now we have yet to do as a nation hardly anything to send out messages to the world that while what we did was necessary, we want to work towards a future where these horrible weapons are not needed. We are fueling a conventional and nuclear arms race in the world, with our blind support of Israel, and to the military industrial complex. Its time to start spending money on the social good, and not the agenda of a wealthy few.
GTA83
12-14-2006, 05:32 AM
Plus it was learned after the bomb's dropped that they were soon going to kill all American POW's, also they were devising biological balloon bombs that floated across pacific via trade winds, one actually killed a few people in washington. Plus Japan were rutheless to the chinese, read the rape of nanking, they would fight until the bitter end those tuff bastards. Something drastic had to happen quick.
polecat
12-14-2006, 10:40 PM
Yeah, and bombs were being distributed to Japanese Civilians so they could jump under tanks just like little kamikazes.
And about the people who were killed by the balloon bombs. There were over 5,000 launched with 300 being found in the US. The 6 people who died were at a church picnic in Oregon looking at a crashed balloon when it exploded.
And on a different note, the Japanese definatly planned on prolonging the war. They even had seaplanes mounted on submarines which they were sending to bomb the Panama canal to delay troops being shipped over from Europe.
Tempra
12-15-2006, 12:21 AM
Nagasaki and Hiroshima were military targets. Why should we feel sorry for bombing the city that was responsible for the defense of the entire southern portion of japan?
It would be like Americans complaining that norfolk got attacked. It's silly...
Also, it led to the COMPLETE defeat of Japan. We were able to come in and turn Japan into a democracy and give women the right to vote.
Additionally, We asked them NUMEROUS times to surrender unconditionally. They didn't. The blame for Hiroshima/Nagasaki is on the Japanese, NOT America.
i wonder if the japanese at the very outset wondered exactly what the end result of their actions would be, i mean did they see themselves at the head of a massive south east asian empire, wouldn't these people be grateful that japan had had the foresight and wisdom to know that attacking their country was the best thing to do?
with the biological weapons they were creating did they ever see themselves as ever being the lab rat? remember america wasn't really sure what was going to happen population wise, how would the body deal with a nuclear blast?
my father was getting ready to take part in the invasion of japan (he had already taken part in d-day) when they dropped the bombs . Its a good job the US army declared war on them first as your dad would have been surrounded quite quickly. What did he just get fed up of the japanese and decided to invade japan by himself but then they dropped the bombs and the USA declared war so he joined up with them or sumthink?
i wonder if the japanese at the very outset wondered exactly what the end result of their actions would be, i mean did they see themselves at the head of a massive south east asian empire, wouldn't these people be grateful that japan had had the foresight and wisdom to know that attacking their country was the best thing to do? I think that most of them were thinking, 'fucking hell I wonder if I will die in this war' I know I would think that
polecat
12-17-2006, 06:14 PM
I think you misread Johnny2Mad's statement. When he says D-Day he means the d-day everyone thinks is THE D-Day(June 6th, 1944). So what he meant was that his dad took part in the normandy invasion, was shipped to the pacific, and was to be part of the invasion force that was assembling.
TheMadcapSyd
12-25-2006, 08:47 PM
While the nuclear bombings are horrible events and it's a shame they had to happen, the fact is that they did have to happen. The amount of both American, Japanese, Soviet and Chinese lifes it would've taken. Japan was no where near surrender before the atom bombs, a good deal of the military government had no interest in surrender at all, and emperor Hirihito himself who was becomming pretty open to idea was still hoping for one more Japanese victory to get more favorable peace terms. Even after we dropped 2 atomic bombs on them, there was an attempted military coup to block the emperor's radio message urging surrender.
I'd say the conventional firebombing of Dresden was more of a crime then the dropping of the atom bomb.
jonny2mad
12-26-2006, 10:45 PM
I think you misread Johnny2Mad's statement. When he says D-Day he means the d-day everyone thinks is THE D-Day(June 6th, 1944). So what he meant was that his dad took part in the normandy invasion, was shipped to the pacific, and was to be part of the invasion force that was assembling.
you are correct .
fountains of nay
12-27-2006, 03:24 PM
Believe me, the Germans got their revenge for Dresden...they bombed Exeter, I'm surprised they didn't go for York, as that's a very historical city too.
palaeopeasant
01-21-2007, 07:11 AM
The arguments FOR dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki are unavoidable...the Japanese had to be stopped, they were headed for a major bloodbath, something had to be done...
I have always wondered, however, why the USA could not have dropped first an atomic bomb in the bay, let everyone see it from the harbor. Give them 24 hours and then drop another one a few miles offshore another city. Do you see these bombs, motherfuckers? You will quit NOW or get one up your ass.
Now from what we know today about radiactivity, there still would have been disastrous consequences, but nothing like what did actually happen. If that had not been enough to bring the Japanese leadership to sanity, then the cities would have to be bombed, but why did not the USA try this option? It would seem that the sight of the bomb exploding over the ocean would be as impressive as over a city.
Hopefully what such events as these A-bombings of Japan as well as the firebombing of Dresden have taught the world is that even if you must be in a war, try like hell to avoid the "collateral damage"...don't let the urgency of war overcome your ethics. We see now governments at least pretending to be concerned about this. Since the days of massive civilian deaths in Vietnam and Afghanistan there have at least been protestations of caring from at least the Western nations, when at war.
When lunatics in the nation in question incite by some madness the attack by greater powers, then we can blame them. When the great powers in their zeal to win cease to be vigilant about collateral damage, then they are to blame.
For some reason the information about the Japanese Empire has been less well disseminated than about Nazi Germany. There is less popular knowledge regarding the incredible history of atrocities which predated by decades the attack on Pearl Harbor and in many respects paralleled what was being accomplished by the Nazis after 1932.
The USA was fighting a war of self-defense in WW2. How different from today's situation of convenient wars based on lies and connivance. Reagan gave Saddam the gas to use on the Persians but he used it on Kurds instead. You don't find this level of low dealing on the part of the USA with Japan leading up to WW2, however much we might legitimately criticize the USA's complicity with European imperialism in Asia.
Tempra
01-22-2007, 04:12 AM
A bomb on a japanese city didn't force a surrender. It took two cities being destroyed. Why would the harbor being bombed do any better?
p.s. reagan didnt give sadddam any gas to kill the kurds. Check again.
polecat
01-22-2007, 06:14 PM
if the US didn't drop the atomic bombs on nagasaki and hiroshima, they just would have firebombed them instead... So why would they waste two perfectly functioning weapons on scare tactics when they had targets that needed destroying???
palaeopeasant
01-23-2007, 03:55 PM
The Reagan Administration gave Saddam the gas to kill Iranians during the war. Saddam used it on Iranian soldiers, but also on Kurdish towns.
TheMadcapSyd
01-23-2007, 11:47 PM
The Reagan Administration gave Saddam the gas to kill Iranians during the war. Saddam used it on Iranian soldiers, but also on Kurdish towns.Yes and no, yes we did but what we gave was the agents to make biological weapons, but European nations gave much more. Chemical weapons wise the blame rests almost all with Europe and Asia, our major crime was supplying Iraq with the intelligence on where to use them.
saddam didn't do anything without asking the americans
before he invaded kuwait he asked the americans if it was ok to invade
(they said they had no opinion, which was the green light for invasion)
wackyiraqi
01-24-2007, 06:39 PM
saddam didn't do anything without asking the americans
before he invaded kuwait he asked the americans if it was ok to invade
(they said they had no opinion, which was the green light for invasion)There was no green light for the invasion. I am assuming you are making this claim in regards to Ambassador Glaspie's July 25, 1990 meeting with Saddam Hussein and Tariq Aziz? If so, it should be noted that the State Department has not confirmed the accuracy of any transcripts from this meeting. There are several versions of these transcripts circulating, with some variance. The argument in the purported transcripts is the statement that Glaspie made in regards to the United States not having an opinion on Arab-Arab conflicts. (No opinion http://www.hipforums.com/forums/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif , after the US provided Iraq with intelligence on Iranian military installations)
Some have claimed that Saddam interpreted Glaspie's comments as a "green light". How somebody can speculate what Saddam interpreted is beyond me.
It should also be noted that in April 1991, Glaspie testified before the Foreign Relations Committee of the United States Senate. She said that at the July 25 meeting she had "repeatedly warned Iraqi President Saddam Hussein against using force to settle his dispute with Kuwait." She also said that Saddam had lied to her by denying he would invade Kuwait.
this is one source i'm sure there are many more
http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/glaspie.html
do you think saddam would have thumbed his nose at america and invaded if the states had told saddam they would back up kuwait to the hilt if saddam invaded?
logically one would conclude saddam would never have invaded if america had said no.
as it is, it is america that does most of the invading these days or their various satellite states. its the shame the soviets aren't around to put the americans back in their box.
wackyiraqi
01-29-2007, 05:54 PM
this is one source i'm sure there are many more
http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/glaspie.html
do you think saddam would have thumbed his nose at america and invaded if the states had told saddam they would back up kuwait to the hilt if saddam invaded?
logically one would conclude saddam would never have invaded if america had said no.
as it is, it is america that does most of the invading these days or their various satellite states. its the shame the soviets aren't around to put the americans back in their box.You are taking statements from a document that has not been verified, and assuming how another person would have perceived those statements? And your agrument is that since the Ambassador told Saddam that the US had no opinion on Arab-Arab conflicts, that they were giving Saddam a "green light" to invade Kuwait?
yes i saw that too
the great thing about reality is that it can be manipulated so thoroughly that you'd never know that yesterdays ally is todays enemy.
from a logical perspective it is unlikely that the saddam being such a good friend of the americans and a good buyer of their goods wouldn't have consulted them before invading.
knowing this one would conclude that if the americans were told that he was invading they would have immediately told him to stop. how do i know this? because operation desrt storm was mounted on the basis that iraq had illegally invaded sovereign kuwaiti territory.
i do remember reading a tiny snippet in the newspaper that iraq had at least 100,000 troops massed on the border with kuwait about 2 WEEKS before the invasion. if the newspaper knew this it is highly likely that the american government knew too.
the result of this knowledge freely available to any man in the street?
a resounding and thundering silence from the american government who were at the time an ally of iraq. the man who would really know what happened is dead, convenient isn't it?
dirtydog
02-07-2007, 05:25 PM
As a nation?
An eye for an eye just creates a world full of one-eyed people.. Or nations..
I regard the dropping of the atomic bomb an atrocity in itself.. And now the US wants to have control over which countries possess Weapons of Mass Destruction... So that any time they choose to teach a country a lesson, it doesn't get attacked back..
Weren't the US army doing many of the things Japan did in World War II in Vietnam and Cambodia 20 years later?
Hmm..Let's suppose Ivory Tower time is over. Class dismissed. Now we're both out in the minefield in a struggle to the death. It's you or it's me, bayonet to bayonet. The United States lost 300,000 combat dead in World War II. That is the position Harry Truman was in, in 1945. And if it's you going to survive or me going to survive, and not both, by God it's going to be me.
3DJay
04-03-2007, 05:38 AM
The bombs were dropped on Japan...
1. To try and encourage a speedy unconditional peace treaty, with the US, before the USSR moved on the island, and they'd have to split it. In the end, the US still allowed the Emperor to stay...the main Japanese condition.
2. As a show of strength, to the USSR, who had just wiped out hundreds of thousands of the Japanese military, in China, in a matter of few weeks.
IMO
Peace
sourdiesel06
04-04-2007, 12:15 AM
3DJay hit the nail on the head but the one thing he forgot to mention is that an invasion of Japan would have made D-day look like a church picnic. If we had invaded Japan using conventional weapons only there would have been many more people killed in the process.
~MorningManiacMusic~
06-21-2007, 08:25 AM
I don't think I'd be here if it wasn't for the use of the A-Bombs...Both my grandpa's were already in alot of major battles during WW2,their luck might have run out during the invasion of Japan.
dd3stp233
06-22-2007, 01:14 PM
At least the U.S. never used the Bat-Bomb. All those millions of poor bats that would have died.
heywood floyd
06-23-2007, 09:10 AM
Actually, one of the reasons that the Americans were so lenient on the Japanese after the surrender was because of all the invaluable knowledge of germ warfare, human anatomy and pain thresholds that they stood to gain from them.
So the people responsible for the experimentation on the Chinese and Korean people ended up still rich, and working for the Americans. I mean, the USSR was still a natural enemy, and there's no way the Americans could afford to give up such an advantage.
God bless America!
Uncle_Asshat
07-01-2007, 07:56 AM
The Allies dropped the Bomb on Japan for 2 reasons.
1.) End the war quickly and avoid an invasion of the Japanese mainland.
2.) Scare the hell out of the Soviet Union who did lots of land grabbing while "liberating" Eastern Europe from the Nazis.
nocturneWill
07-18-2007, 08:58 PM
Weren't the US army doing many of the things Japan did in World War II in Vietnam and Cambodia 20 years later?
Hmm..
NO!!
US army was not honoured in Vietnam and Cambodia 20 years ago.There were bad events happening.BUT they were ABSOLUTELY not doing the things Japan did in World War II.
Take a glimpse of the book 'Rape of Nanking'----
The japs were sick RAPISTS.( An estimated 20,000 women were raped by the Japanese soldiers during the six weeks of the Nanking Massacre, most were brutally killed afterwards. The Japanese soldiers even raped girls less than ten years old, women over seventy years old, pregnant women, and nuns. Rampant raping took place in the streets or at religious worshiping places during the day. Many women were gang raped. Some Japanese even forced fathers to rape their daughters, sons to rape their mothers, etc. Those who resisted were killed immediately.)
http://prion.bchs.uh.edu/%7Ezzhang/1/Nanking_Massacre/gallery6.html
They killed civilians as PLAYING GAMES (Two Japanese officers, Toshiaki Mukai and Tsuyoshi Noda competing to see who could kill (with a sword) one hundred people first.)
http://prion.bchs.uh.edu/%7Ezzhang/1/Nanking_Massacre/gallery4.html
Special Japanese military units conducted experiments on civilians and POWs in China. One of the most infamous was Unit 731. Victims were subjected to vivisection without anesthesia, amputations, and were used to test biological weapons, among other experiments. Anesthesia was not used because it was considered to affect results. In some victims, animal blood was injected into their bodies.
http://prion.bchs.uh.edu/%7Ezzhang/1/Nanking_Massacre/gallery3.html
http://prion.bchs.uh.edu/%7Ezzhang/1/Nanking_Massacre/history.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes
nocturneWill
07-18-2007, 09:11 PM
I felt sick for a long while after reading these documents.
this is the darkest page in human history,and sadly it seemed to be forgotten.
i was wondering when someone would read something about unit 731
if anything, reading through these grim annals of japanese military "victories" should tell you that this widespread abuse gains only retribution in reward
hailtothekingbaby
07-19-2007, 11:34 AM
I think flattening entire cities and thus killing all civilians inside (not to mention the lives lost later due to the fallout) is a bit harsh.
KiddieP
07-20-2007, 06:31 PM
The japs were sick RAPISTS.( An estimated 20,000 women were raped by the Japanese soldiers during the six weeks of the Nanking Massacre, most were brutally killed afterwards. The Japanese soldiers even raped girls less than ten years old, women over seventy years old, pregnant women, and nuns. Rampant raping took place in the streets or at religious worshiping places during the day. Many women were gang raped. Some Japanese even forced fathers to rape their daughters, sons to rape their mothers, etc. Those who resisted were killed immediately.)20,000
mudkipz
07-27-2007, 06:06 PM
I think flattening entire cities and thus killing all civilians inside (not to mention the lives lost later due to the fallout) is a bit harsh.
I agree. There are proper measures to make the Japanese pay for their mistakes and dropping bombs on 2 major cities isn't one of them.
tfb9999
07-27-2007, 06:08 PM
I agree. There are proper measures to make the Japanese pay for their mistakes and dropping bombs on 2 major cities isn't one of them.
Yeah, the radiation fucked their minds so bad and now they're making tentacle rape porn and shit.
vBulletin® v3.8.2, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.