Did you know there was a genocide against the Japanese during WW2?

Question

America did not just defeat the Japanese military but it also tried to exterminate the Japanese which it did a good job of by dropping TWO nukes and claiming no one noticed the first. The Japanese thought it was "conventional" bombing according to the US responsible for the genocide.

Answer 1

Do your research and learn something about actual history!

The nuclear strikes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were intended to force the Japanese to surrender. They accomplished their purpose admirably, sparing the estimated hundreds of thousands of casualties on both sides that would have resulted from an invasion of the Japanese home islands.

Answer 2

I will chalk your supposed question up as a misinformed rant based on your dislike of nuclear weapons, and reply rather than reporting it AS a rant. Let's define "Genocide" first. If one is engaging in genocide, then one exterminates ALL members of the targeted race or nationality. We had a fair amount of Japanese-Americans in this country at the start of the war. While I do think that the internment camps were wrong, if we had been engaging in genocide. would the persons interned EVER have been released?, would not the camps have become a means of exterminations on a scale to match the Nazi "Final solution"? Obviously that didn't happen. IF we had been engaging in Genocide, would we have taken ANY Japaneese prisoners of war? Obviously not, and since we DID take POW's, when they allowed themselves to be captured rather than commiting suicide, that speaks against genocide as well. You rail against the use of the A-bombs (Make note, there IS a difference twixt an A and a "Nuke", or thermonuclear fusion-weapon, but this only matters to the educated) but consider this: If we had forgone the use of the A-bombs, then we'd have been left with invading the islands. The death-toll, given that the Japaneese would have fought tooth-and-nail for every square inch of their islands, would have been horrific, and we'd have been forced to kill 10 times as many Japaneese as we did with the A-bombs as a minimum. If we had been intent on genocide, we could have continued conventional bombing of the islands, which was taking a horrible toll already, and with all supply from the outside cut off by naval blockade, starvation and disease would have added to that toll. When we occupied the islands after the surrender, some of the first things we did were to set up hospitals and other humanitarian facilities. If we had been commiting genocide, wouldn't we have ignored their wounded, sick, and starving? Your argument has gaping flaws of fact and logic, and is rife with ideological rhetoric.

Answer 3

The bomb completed a quantity of matters: a million. It ended the struggle faster. Japan MIGHT have surrendered besides, or after traditional bombing (which might have killed much more), however the US could not recognise that two. It stored American lives. This one is unarguable, and in wartime comprehensible three. It avoided a Soviet interference within the publish struggle designs of the US. The Soviet union used to be by the point of the bombings already shifting troops to the Pacific theater. four. It despatched a now not-so-delicate message to the Soviet Union that armed clash with the west might now not be in it is great curiosity. (A probability that used to be some distance much more likely than individuals detect). five. The US best had 2 bombs. And it might be a while earlier than extra might be produced.. so a "scan" to exhibit the energy of the bomb might now not be relied upon because the guns have been too worthwhile to waste. Basically at no time did the US have as a motive to kill as many civilians as poosible.. or else it might had been dropped on Tokyo or Kyoto, and at no time for the period of or after the struggle have been the Japanese individuals handled with whatever just like the instances suffered by way of real sufferers of Genocide.

Answer 4

And did you know that there was genocide against the Chinese by the Japanese during the occupation years? Nanking my friend, Nanking.

I like Psyop6 and Stephen H response to your question.

Answer 5

I suppose that you're not one to read OR study history! Try it sometime! If you do, you'll find that the Allies waged only war, noyt genocide against the Japs. With conventional and finally, to avoid invading Japan and possibly losing as many as 1,000,000 lives, they resorted to dropping 2 atomic bombs. They were effective in convincing the japs to surrender, even tho costly in lives lost. I personally, believe it was the sensible thing to do. I lived thru those days and I know how fanatical and brutal the japs were. Many lives were spared by those courses of action. Possibly you have been brain washed, tch, tch!!

Answer 6

G'day Right L,

Thank you for your question.

There wasn't. The atomic bombs were dropped to discourage the Japanese from fighting on as they had in Okinawa. During the Battle of Okinawa, more than 140,000 civilians were killed and a third of the remaining population. The US feared that there would be a million casualties if there was an invasion.

I have attached a source for your reference.

Regards

Answer 7

first of all, they weren't nukes they were atomic bombs. there actually is a difference.

second of all, the japanese were training their CHILDREN how to slaughter an american if they came across one. our two bombs ended that all. it was the kind of shock japan needed to experience to know that a war against the US was futile. it saved more lives than it took.

and by no means call it genocide. hitler was reponsible for the only genocide in WW2.

Answer 8

That's a ridiculous statement. Ever heard of a dictionary, go look up genocide and you will see that it means the systematic destruction of a people. Maybe had we dropped 100 atomic bombs you could make that argument.

"War is cruelty, you cannot refine it"
William Tecumseh Sherman

Answer 9

Your "question" is nominated as the stupidest rant of the day.

Answer 10

wow....that's....really, ummm....interesting.

What a well thought out and compelling argument.