Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Japanese were preparing to fight to death; the death of every Japanese man, woman, and child.

You have to view the bombs’ use through only one lens: the lens of reality.

The fact is: the bombs saved countless lives.

I know that is our historical perspective and what we say, but how is it portrayed through Japan's historical lenses.

Who gives a fig? Japan, unprovoked and the ambassador to the US lying to the Sec. of State concerning Japan's intentions. attacked the United States and got exactly what they deserved.

Apparently, you have limited knowledge of American history.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Japanese were preparing to fight to death; the death of every Japanese man, woman, and child.

You have to view the bombs’ use through only one lens: the lens of reality.

The fact is: the bombs saved countless lives.

I know that is our historical perspective and what we say, but how is it portrayed through Japan's historical lenses.

In a similar way to how the Berliners view the destruction of their city and mass casualties to civilians in 1945. Their leaders were trying to take over the world, they were the war instigators and the aggressors, and their countries inevitably paid the ultimate price within their borders as the world stepped up to stop them. What happened and who the aggressors were in the 1930s and 40s is not a matter of debate.

I'm talking about an atomic bomb. A weapon of mass destruction that never been used before or after. I understand the victor gets to write his-story. Maybe the Japanese would agree that they would have fought to the last woman and child, but we know that's not true because they didn't. A bomb would not have stopped that mentality of never surrender. It was a convenient reason to try out our new weapon and to spare American lives. Kinda glad as the grandchild of someone who fought in the WW2 Pacific. I'm just wondering what the lense of the Japanese survivors were and what they teach in their history classes. I bet it is not what you wrote.

The Japanese socially shunned victims of radiation and burns from the bombs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hibakusha

They faced intense discrimination when finding jobs or spouses. They were given a welfare payment, but the government basically said "tough luck" to many of the civilian victims. Japan is pretty f#cked up. They have a mix of guilt (for being aggressors) and shame (for being completely dominated by a Western force).

You meant to say "Japan WAS pretty effed up". What you describe is not Japan in 2025. The Japanese people are as beautiful and kind as the German people are in 2025. Most countries have experienced times of awful leadership that took them to dark places. It doesn't mean the people are anywhere close to as dark and deranged as their leaders. Israeli Jews and Palestinians are examples of beautiful and kind people misrepresented by their blood thirsty leaders.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Japanese were preparing to fight to death; the death of every Japanese man, woman, and child.

You have to view the bombs’ use through only one lens: the lens of reality.

The fact is: the bombs saved countless lives.

I know that is our historical perspective and what we say, but how is it portrayed through Japan's historical lenses.

The Japanese were not going to surrender after the bombings. They were planning on bring troops back from China to continue to fight. That hope ended when 1.5 million Russians invade Manchuria on August 9th. The Russian rolled over the Japanese in Manchuria. The night of August 14-15 before the emperor was going to surrender a coup known as the Kyūjō Incident stormed the palace to stop the surrender.


There is a famous Japanese fighter pilot who survived the war. He has said he and most others would have done the same thing. It was war. The Japanese killed over 30 million civilians during the war.

Remember the fire bombing kill many times more vs the atomic bombs. The estimated for the firebombing are 250,000 to 900,000.
Hiroshima Nagasaki atomic bombings
Pre-raid population 255,000 195,000
Dead 66,000 39,000
Injured 69,000 25,000
Vs
The firebombing of Tokyo on March 9-10, 1945, is estimated to have killed between 80,000 and 100,000 people and left about a million homeless.
Does it really matter if you died because of a nuclear bomb detonation or burn to death in a firestorm?

An invasion of Japan casualty estimates. Allied 250,00 to million military with 5-10 million Japanese(military and civilian). This does not include the wide spread famine that would have started by September/October of 1945. That would have been another 7-10 million by the end of 1946. This was only avoided by the US shipping massive amounts of food in after surrender. The ruling military class did not give a sh#t about the Japanese civilians.

FAFO. Japan started it, we ended it.

It was the right decision then and it still is today.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Japanese were preparing to fight to death; the death of every Japanese man, woman, and child.

You have to view the bombs’ use through only one lens: the lens of reality.

The fact is: the bombs saved countless lives.

I know that is our historical perspective and what we say, but how is it portrayed through Japan's historical lenses.

In a similar way to how the Berliners view the destruction of their city and mass casualties to civilians in 1945. Their leaders were trying to take over the world, they were the war instigators and the aggressors, and their countries inevitably paid the ultimate price within their borders as the world stepped up to stop them. What happened and who the aggressors were in the 1930s and 40s is not a matter of debate.

I'm talking about an atomic bomb. A weapon of mass destruction that never been used before or after. I understand the victor gets to write his-story. Maybe the Japanese would agree that they would have fought to the last woman and child, but we know that's not true because they didn't. A bomb would not have stopped that mentality of never surrender. It was a convenient reason to try out our new weapon and to spare American lives. Kinda glad as the grandchild of someone who fought in the WW2 Pacific. I'm just wondering what the lense of the Japanese survivors were and what they teach in their history classes. I bet it is not what you wrote.

The Japanese socially shunned victims of radiation and burns from the bombs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hibakusha

They faced intense discrimination when finding jobs or spouses. They were given a welfare payment, but the government basically said "tough luck" to many of the civilian victims. Japan is pretty f#cked up. They have a mix of guilt (for being aggressors) and shame (for being completely dominated by a Western force).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Japanese were preparing to fight to death; the death of every Japanese man, woman, and child.

You have to view the bombs’ use through only one lens: the lens of reality.

The fact is: the bombs saved countless lives.

I know that is our historical perspective and what we say, but how is it portrayed through Japan's historical lenses.

In a similar way to how the Berliners view the destruction of their city and mass casualties to civilians in 1945. Their leaders were trying to take over the world, they were the war instigators and the aggressors, and their countries inevitably paid the ultimate price within their borders as the world stepped up to stop them. What happened and who the aggressors were in the 1930s and 40s is not a matter of debate.

I'm talking about an atomic bomb. A weapon of mass destruction that never been used before or after. I understand the victor gets to write his-story. Maybe the Japanese would agree that they would have fought to the last woman and child, but we know that's not true because they didn't. A bomb would not have stopped that mentality of never surrender. It was a convenient reason to try out our new weapon and to spare American lives. Kinda glad as the grandchild of someone who fought in the WW2 Pacific. I'm just wondering what the lense of the Japanese survivors were and what they teach in their history classes. I bet it is not what you wrote.

The death and destruction the Russians brought to Berlin and allied forces brought to other German cities over the course of a few months in 1945 was comparable to the immediate death and destruction caused by the atomic bombs. In both cases it was necessary due to the aggressors refusal to surrender. At the time, the German and Japanese people were obviously horrified and angry but time has allowed for healing and acceptance of the truth behind why these atrocities happened. There are of course deniers and conspiracy theorists all over the world that tell a different tale but they are very small in number and easily proven wrong.

Anonymous wrote:
I know that is our historical perspective and what we say, but how is it portrayed through Japan's historical lenses.



They probably believe that the atomic bombs were unnecessary. However, the Japanese were not held accountable for many of the war crimes they committed against POW's and the citizens of countries conquered by Japan. I have heard that Japanese schools don't teach about Japanese war crimes. This might impact their views on the necessity of using atomic bombs.

Thank you. I am always open to hearing the other side.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Japanese were preparing to fight to death; the death of every Japanese man, woman, and child.

You have to view the bombs’ use through only one lens: the lens of reality.

The fact is: the bombs saved countless lives.

I know that is our historical perspective and what we say, but how is it portrayed through Japan's historical lenses.

In a similar way to how the Berliners view the destruction of their city and mass casualties to civilians in 1945. Their leaders were trying to take over the world, they were the war instigators and the aggressors, and their countries inevitably paid the ultimate price within their borders as the world stepped up to stop them. What happened and who the aggressors were in the 1930s and 40s is not a matter of debate.

I'm talking about an atomic bomb. A weapon of mass destruction that never been used before or after. I understand the victor gets to write his-story. Maybe the Japanese would agree that they would have fought to the last woman and child, but we know that's not true because they didn't. A bomb would not have stopped that mentality of never surrender. It was a convenient reason to try out our new weapon and to spare American lives. Kinda glad as the grandchild of someone who fought in the WW2 Pacific. I'm just wondering what the lense of the Japanese survivors were and what they teach in their history classes. I bet it is not what you wrote.

Anonymous wrote:One day those places might be inhabitable again, but it’ll probably take another hundred thousand years.

Actually both were airburst with very little long term residual radiation and fall out. Both place returnee to normal back round radiation within a month.

I know that is our historical perspective and what we say, but how is it portrayed through Japan's historical lenses.



They probably believe that the atomic bombs were unnecessary. However, the Japanese were not held accountable for many of the war crimes they committed against POW's and the citizens of countries conquered by Japan. I have heard that Japanese schools don't teach about Japanese war crimes. This might impact their views on the necessity of using atomic bombs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Japanese were preparing to fight to death; the death of every Japanese man, woman, and child.

You have to view the bombs’ use through only one lens: the lens of reality.

The fact is: the bombs saved countless lives.

I know that is our historical perspective and what we say, but how is it portrayed through Japan's historical lenses.

In a similar way to how the Berliners view the destruction of their city and mass casualties to civilians in 1945. Their leaders were trying to take over the world, they were the war instigators and the aggressors, and their countries inevitably paid the ultimate price within their borders as the world stepped up to stop them. What happened and who the aggressors were in the 1930s and 40s is not a matter of debate.

Anonymous wrote:The Japanese were preparing to fight to death; the death of every Japanese man, woman, and child.

You have to view the bombs’ use through only one lens: the lens of reality.

The fact is: the bombs saved countless lives.

I know that is our historical perspective and what we say, but how is it portrayed through Japan's historical lenses.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not sure why bombing 1 town was not enough and it had to be 2.

Some hardheaded punks need two fists upside the head to get the message of “cease and desist”.

Plus-One, I'll Plus-One that.
They call it Plus-One.
We were tough,
Ya gotta be tough.

We leveled both Hiroshinto and Kawasaki,
Completely leveled them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not sure why bombing 1 town was not enough and it had to be 2.

Some hardheaded punks need two fists upside the head to get the message of “cease and desist”.

The Japanese were basically the MAGAs of the time. History can teach us the solutions to current problems, if only we pay attention. A few nukes dropped on maga strongholds like Idaho and Oklahoma and various places in Florida would do a lot of good.

Anonymous wrote:The anniversary serves as a reminder of the horrors of nuclear war and the ongoing threat of nuclear weapons.

It's a reminder of the horror of Japanese aggression and the lengths to which the US had to go to stop them.