Comments by "Voryn Rosethorn" (@vorynrosethorn903) on "The Hiroshima Bombing By The US" video.

  1. I would say that the bombing is a lot less complicated than what happened afterwards. Japan was planning to fight to the death under the military, this is not hyperbole, the military plan was to make Japan so costly to take that no one would bother, from the allied perspective they would likely lose millions of men to a conventional assault and from the Japanese every civilian would be expected to die for the national good, on top of this was the wider situation, Japan is not a rich country and by this period in the war supply lines had largely been cut, even as things were people were starting to starve. If anyone knows anything of the early months of occupation they will know that many did die of starvation even with the full efforts of the red cross and the newly arrived occupying troops. If Japan had not surrendered when it did starvation would have killed more than the fighting itself, a large portion of the population likely would have died. As such the quick ending of the war actually saved lives. The controversial point is what happened post war, the war trials were frankly rigged, innocent men were made scapegoat and guilty let off for political expectancy, especially those of the imperial house but also men who have inflicted grotesque human experiments in return for their research notes. The country was made a puppet and the constitution written to American interests, the old educational establishment was destroyed by banning the old teachers from working and in effect the subversive elements of Japanese society were given reign, this lead to decade's of educational strife as the communist aligned teaching union fought with the department of education and the parents organisations. The conduct of the occupation troops was in large part disgraceful (I'm talking about the mass r*pes) and very few were properly punished. American extended a hand in rebuilding Japan, but it was largely as a logistical hub and bulwark against enemies in the region, once Japan started doing well they changed tact and started treating Japan as an economic threat, as Japan is resource poor they had little recourse and the economic downturn this caused is ongoing. The cultural influence of America while it has been useful in implanting a more stable political system and finally ending some of the more barbaric native practices (such as the selling of children) has caused immense harm culturally, imports like the American dating system and various ideologies are immensely destructive to a nation built on extreme particularities largely alien to the systems with which they are forced to interact, these things are a disaster in their home country, they are cataclysmic in foreign ones. More current American influence is just plain bad, the influence of failed western ideological projects is being heavily lobbied for by western NGO's and diplomacy, but to be blunt western ideology is based in western assumptions and entirely destructive to native culture as it supplants it, in terms of policy, mass immigration is the single best means to put an end to the distinct existence of Japan and the Japanese not to mention the utter civil strife it has caused in the nation's already victimised be it. To listen to American at this point is to listen to the devil for the results at least are much the same.
    5
  2. 3
  3. 2
  4. 1
  5. 1
  6. They were not near surrender, the closest possible was a conditional surrender, with the allies had agreed among themselves weren't to be accepted. Japan was to be turned into a fortress as were the mountains in the North of Korea. The Japanese had ascertained the landing locations for a naval invasion and had started building the air hangers and factories within mountains that were necessary to avoid bombing raids. The military had prepared, they were ready, the two points of failure were the nuke and the political volatility of Japan, command was thrown into serious disarray by the bomb, less because of a lost city than that political manoeuvring started because of it and everyone was trying to play a role or work out what the hell was going on. There was a failed coup, the Soviets attacked Manchuria and the planned retreat was not enacted as had been prepared, senior officers argued that there was only one nuke and even if not they could endure it. At this point in the war Japan's victory was clearly understood to be impossible and thus they were willing to surrender under the condition of the emperor retaining his position, this was however against the agreement among the allies and the public sentiment, thus only unconditional surrender would be accepted, later policies don't matter, the commitment was towards unconditional surrender and it was to be kept to. The means to force the issue were three, to invade at vast cost to both sides, to blockade indefinitely and allow much of the population to starve until presumably opposite day came and the sunk cost fallacy caused the leadership to given up rather than dig in, or to us the experimental weapon meant for the purpose. The Americans had already killed 100'000's of innocent civilians in the fire bombing campaign naturally they would pick the cheapest option. The fact is I am very sceptical of the intentions of the US (which tend towards maliciousness in my estimation) but intentional or not within the restrictions of the circumstances the choice made was the least destructive one. As said post war decisions are much more.objectionable.
    1