The Japanese were going to die for their emperor. Their emperor was God, literally, to them. They only surrendered once word got to him about how much destruction the 2nd nuke did because the 1st one was unbelievable. Or he must've thought it was a one off

then you jumped to defend them like a fucking lion

As for the Holocaust, it didn't happen. What happened was Jews got pinned as scapegoats (for good, though not necessarily justified reason). Then they were forced into labor camps. Germany suffered huge rationing in the war. Tons starved in labor camps as they were the last people who would be given food.

fucking hell

@Aleksa Are you complaining that people respond to your nonsense?

@JoeyJoestar1337 I don't see how that is supposed to justify dropping two nukes on civilians

The civilians were willing to go to war and die for it like any other soldier

Their religion literally legitimized themselves to kill themselves in the kamakazi attacks

The civilians were willing to defend themselves against people who were willing to drop two nukes on them

Those were the economic and military HQ cities. No matter where we bombed, we would kill civilians

Don't be surprised of how, seeing what monsters threatened them, they were willing to sacrifice themselves

@Quarantine_Zone Again pathetic excuses for an act that shows who deserved to lose

The alternative was firebombing dozens of cities

When will you people learn to never do balkan threads

The alternative was stop being evil retards who are wiling to nuke civilian cities

The thing is this. Last thing I'm saying about the japanese

So you want to firebomb the cities instead?

This reminds me of the arguments for abortion

Oh, its not exactly a balkan thread, my bad

>do you want the child to live without being loved?

What I'm saying is the US was going to bomb cities no matter what

Even that is more defensible than nuking two cities

The military decided they could either nuke or firebomb. Nuking was going to end the war quickly. Firebombing would have lasted months and killed more people.

I don't think so

The military just didn't care about civilians

Dude, firebombing would have killed more people

And decided to drop big bombs on the ebil antisemites

Have you seen the results of napalm bombs on cities?

We would have destroyes the same cities

Well, I would see the results of nukes, but there is no city to look at

Plus more

No, you don't get it

Nagasaki and Hiroshima would have been absolutely wiped out by the firebombing too!

Why do you think people and military talk constantly about the threat of nukes and not the threat of "firebombing"?

Sure thing

I'm sorry, but that just looks like the cheapest excuse one could ever make

Because nukes are fast and, in the present day, too many countries have them with too much tension, so one nuke could set off many countries nuking

"Sure, I have pretty much erased your city form Earth, but it was for the best, believe me!"

Firebombing would have killed the citizens too, and the citizens of Tokyo and other cities likely

Would you rather have 2 cities dead or 5 cities dead?

I'm going to offer a more plausible alternative: