Comments by "Jim Werther" (@jimwerther) on "Today I Found Out"
channel.
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Grim_Beard
You persist in exposing your ignorance to the world, thus consistently humiliating yourself in public. Here's a rule: When you're in a hole, stop digging. After all, you're only making it worse for yourself.
Your "thinking" goes like this: I don't like civilians dying in war, and I don't like the US, so now I will work backwards to try to convince myself that the US is wrong about how they won WWII and instead invent "evidence" after the fact to justify my feelings.
You were repeatedly asked what your alternative was to win a war started by the Axis Powers. You repeatedly refused to answer....because you have no answer. Should the US have used smart bombs? There weren't any in 1945. I imagine you'd rather they'd held on for 50 years until they could be invented? If so, what about the Chinese civilians who were being murdered by the Japanese at a rate of tens of thousands per month while the war went on? Nevermind what the Japanese were doing in other countries, such as Singapore.
If you knew anything about history, you'd know that there were no Japanese civilians. Every single Japanese was involved in the war effort. Women and children were being trained to fight against armed soldiers with bamboo sticks, and fight to the death. Women famously killed their own babies rather than surrender to American troops.
So you simultaneously claim, against all evidence, that the war had been won anyway, unrelated to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Every single piece of evidence shows that claim to be blatantly false, as I and others have explained in this thread, but of course once you have a predetermined conclusion in search of supporting evidence, facts are simply not a relevant factor. As others have noted, the prior Japanese offer of "surrender" was no surrender at all, but a stalling tactic. Furthermore, without the use of the nukes, both the US and Japan would have suffered many more casualties. The US expected around 500,000 dead. The Japanese number was expected to be several million. And that doesn't even start with other countries, a number of which would have also been hit hard, starting with China, the Soviet Union, and the UK. Essentially, the US would have had to wipe out the Japanese population and inherit a ghost-like country, while the US lost more people than they had since the start of the war. But you'd rather hold onto that as preferable, because you persistently hold on to your dead argument.
As it happens, the US used the bombs with a level of reluctance, including choosing as targets Japanese cities which were less historic. But they did have a war to win. You didn't; you just like to make up crap behind a keyboard 75 years later.
So what do the Japanese have to say about your mindless arguments? Well, let's see:
"It's very regrettable that nuclear bombs were dropped and I feel sorry for the citizens of Hiroshima but it couldn't be helped because that happened in wartime."
- Emperor Hirohito, 1975
"I now have come to accept in my mind that in order to end the war, it could not be helped that an atomic bomb was dropped on Nagasaki and that countless numbers of people suffered great tragedy."
- Then-Japanese defense minister Fumio Kyūma, 2007. (Fumio Kyūma hailed from Nagasaki.)
But you know better. Of course.
That sound you hear is the internet laughing at you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1