Was it war crime?

Ok, so warcrimes committed in order to win do not count?

Attached: 1580070506983.png (600x1199, 298.01K)

They didn't have to.

They're lucky we didn't nuke them more

Attached: 1601336024498.png (824x1014, 1.31M)

It is legitimate to bomb military targets during a war.

During WW2, bombing technologies weren't good enough to hit military targets without killing civilians.

The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were nothing more than the final evolution of a policy of strategic bombing that had been building since the beginning of the war, which saved countless lives by destroying the axis war machine.

>The latest scholarship is clear that the Soviet Union’s declaration of war was the Japanese military’s worst nightmare. Unable to fight a two-front war and anti-communist to its core, the Japanese military and civilian government officials were terrified of a Soviet occupation and panicked at the prospect of losing Hokkaido. Suddenly, an immediate surrender to the United States became a necessity for preserving Japan’s integrity. The hard truth is that the atomic bombings were redundant, and they saved no American lives.

Would you also say that SS killing entire villages were legitimate anti-terror operations, since the intelligence technology wasn't good enough to single out resurgence fighters yet?

technically I don't know, but morally absolutely

I'd like to prevent muricans from ACTUAL war crimes by nuking NY and LA

it's not a war crime when your side wins the war

Attached: downfall.jpg.gallery.jpg (650x366, 21.57K)

War crimes are a meme.

well, yeah, but with the precedent of several years' worth of nonstop warcrimes over in Europe, so no one really protested

it was unnecessary they could not win because they were fighting against a people with a stronger will than them so they use german technology

Nah. Anyway Nanjing, Unit 731, Comfort Women etc. Feel free to call me Chinese, you guys always do.

>accidentally killing civilians in aerial warfare is the same thing as deliberately killing them in cold blood

insidious...

spiteful...

petty...

I wonder who those 14% Japanese cucks are

Attached: US-Japan-Report-12.png (309x433, 8.22K)

war is a crime

>accidentally

I wouldn't call dropping a nuke on a city "accidentally killing civilians"

>56%
lol

I wonder if those 56% see nothing really wrong with 9/11 either. A very similar act justified with very similar logic.

All wh*te ppl

Yes and a based one

The US actually attempted precision bombing earlier in the war.

The amount of money the US spent on the Norden bombsight was similar to the amount spent on the Manhattan project.

Unfortunately, bombing point targets under real world conditions turned out to be impossible, so the US was forced to shift towards saturation bombing.

The alternative, of course, was letting the war go on longer and letting the fascists murders tens of millions more innocent civilians. Only modern liberals and actual fascists are historically illiterate enough or cruel enough to think that that was a better option.

we are talking about Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombing. Which Japanese war crimes did those prevent?

Damn who would've thought that nuking two cities would cause civilian deaths. Nobody saw that coming... Also you didn't save shit

The Japanese surrendered because of the Soviets, not because of the nukes.

The millions that would have died from the blockade if the US had kept it up, plus the many more that would have died if the US actually mounted a land invasion.

Japan wasn't self sufficient in food and the US had sunk almost all Japanese merchant shipping. After the war, it was only a concerted effort to flood Japan with food that averted a North Korea tier famine.

Also

Is that why the emperor explicitly stated the atomic bomb as the reason for Japan's surrender?

War crimes are a meme. In total war, there is no such soy notion.