[nradov]

The Japanese government started the war and was free to stop it at any time. They could have issued an unconditional surrender and the fighting would have stopped within hours. All of the deaths in Hiroshima were entirely their responsibility.

[brabel]

Right, just like Ukraine could just stop the war right now by surrendering unconditionally, and all Ukrainians who are dying in the war are entirely their own government's responsibility, right? This argument goes for both sides of every war, hence it's completely meaningless.

[hnu123]

> The Japanese government started the war and was free to stop it at any time.

No. The US started the war with economic sanctions. This is a historical fact.

> They could have issued an unconditional surrender and the fighting would have stopped within hours.

They could have. Or the US could have accepted japan's conditional surrender. Just because a government refuses to surrender doesn't justify murdering innocent civilians. Do you think if a criminal refuses to surrender, the cops are justified in murdering the criminal's wife and children?

> All of the deaths in Hiroshima were entirely their responsibility.

No. The responsibility lies on the people who dropped the nukes.

What you and your ilk are doing is using terrorist logic to justify murdering civilians. Murdering civilians because you don't like the actions of a government is terrorist logic. When you share the morality of terrorists, you should reevaluate your moral foundation.

But you prove my point. Evil is alive and well. Justifying genocide and nuking of civilians is evil.

[nemo]

> The US started the war with economic sanctions.

Like Ukraine started a war with Russia by economic alignment with the western powers, or Poland starting a war with Germany in WW II for their offenses against German citizens.

> This is a historical fact.

It's very poor form to introduce a not only controversial opinion but a wholly subjective one, then claim that opinion to be a fact. It erases any credibility you might think you have.

[hnu123]

> Like Ukraine started a war with Russia by economic alignment with the western powers

The ukraine war started when the US and Russia agreed to partition ukraine. Like the germans and soviets did to poland in ww2. Ukraine has no say in the matter. No more than poland did in the 1930s. Ukraine didn't start anything. Ukraine can't stop anything.

> or Poland starting a war with Germany in WW II for their offenses against German citizens.

No. The war in poland started when the Germans and the Soviets decided to divided poland up. Sound familiar?

> It's very poor form to introduce a not only controversial opinion but a wholly subjective one

It's not controversial. It's a fact. Sanctions are an act of war. Blocking trade is an act of war. You blockade 90+% of oil to a country, it's a declaration of war. It doesn't take a genius to figure out why pearl harbor happened.

[scheme271]

> > The Japanese government started the war and was free to stop it at any time. > No. The US started the war with economic sanctions. This is a historical fact.

Sanctions started to be imposed in 1938. But Japan invaded Manchuria in 1933 and by 1937 invaded China and had already perpetrated the Nanking Massacre. The sanctions were in part a response to the invasion of China and Japanese atrocities against China.

[hnu123]

> Sanctions started to be imposed in 1938.

And? You realize that 1938 is before 1941?

> But Japan invaded Manchuria in 1933 and by 1937 invaded China and had already perpetrated the Nanking Massacre.

The US ( and much of europe ) invaded china in the 1800s and by 1937 had committed hundreds of massacres. What's your point? Why was Nanking so important? Oh that's right, it was the center of american and european colonization of china.

> The sanctions were in part a response to the invasion of China and Japanese atrocities against China.

No. The sanctions were in response to japan taking american and european possessions in china. Had nothing to do with atrocities in china.

If the US cared about atrocities against china, we would have sanctioned the british, germans, russians, italians, french, etc long before we sanctioned the japanese. Heck we would have sanctioned ourselves long before we sanctioned japan for committing atrocities against japan.

BTW, the only nationality explicitly banned from the US was the chinese with the Chinese Exclusion Act. The idea that the US cared about chinese lives is laughable.

If you stand back and look at the garbage propaganda you are regurgitating, youd' realize how silly it all is.

"We dropped the nuke to save japanese lives". "We sanctioned japan to save chinese lives". Amazing how racist white supremacists cared so much about asian lives.

[scheme271]

> And? You realize that 1938 is before 1941?

Sanctions were imposed in response to Japan invading China among other things. Japan was clearly the aggressor in Asia before 1938. Sanctions weren't the reason for Japan attacking, it was already on the path to do so before 1938.

> The US ( and much of europe ) invaded china in the 1800s and by 1937 had committed hundreds of massacres. What's your point?

The bad behavior of other countries didn't give Japan the license to invade China and engage in the same behaviors.

>Why was Nanking so important? Oh that's right, it was the center of american and european colonization of china.

No, Nanking is probably the most widely publicized and documented of Japan's atrocities against Chinese civilian populations.

> BTW, the only nationality explicitly banned from the US was the chinese with the Chinese Exclusion Act. The idea that the US cared about chinese lives is laughable.

Although the Chinese were initially targeted in the Chinese exclusion act, the bans there were expanded to include southern europeans and all of asia (e.g. United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind in 1923).

[yongjik]

> > The Japanese government started the war and was free to stop it at any time.

> No. The US started the war with economic sanctions. This is a historical fact.

Ah, you are the kind of person who consider the US the aggressor of the Pacific War. You could have started your argument with that; it would've saved time for everyone.

[hnu123]

> Ah, you are the kind of person who consider the US the aggressor of the Pacific War.

You mean the country that colonized japan ( twice ), philippines, korea, china, vietnam, not to mention stole hawaii and a bunch of pacific islands? Yes. We have been aggressors in the pacific for centuries.

But if you are talking about US-Japan war, it is historical fact that US sanctions ( an act of war ) was the beginning of US-Japan war.

If you are talking about the overall Pacific War, then it's complicated. European and american invasion and colonization of almost all of asia spurred japan militarization and eventual war.

But regardless, doesn't matter who the aggressor was. Nuking innocent civilians is evil. Period.

[nemo]

The US oil sanctions were in 1941. At that point war was inevitable, the sanctions were a response to Japan's military machine rolling across British Commonwealth territories in the Pacific. The US wasn't formally aligned but was strategically aligned with the British and Commonwealth nations and the sanctions were a response to Japanese military aggression. The sanctions didn't start anything, they were only an action in the middle of a larger conflict, and it's a funny way to frame them as starting a war when they were a non-military response to Japanese military attacks.

[thedailymail]

Japan was never colonized in the usual sense of the word. I guess the first event you're referring to is Perry's gunboat diplomacy that brought an end to the Tokugawa isolationism, and the second is the occupation post WWII. Neither of these involved the economic exploitation and imposition of total hegemony that typify imperialistic colonization. After all, we don't generally say that the US colonized West Germany after the war.

[hnu123]

> Japan was never colonized in the usual sense of the word.

It was in every sense of the word.

> I guess the first event you're referring to is Perry's gunboat diplomacy that brought an end to the Tokugawa isolationism

Not isolationism. Japan didn't isolate itself. It maintained contacts with their 'civilized' neighbors china, korea, etc. Japan simply banned imperial european nations because imperial european nations were behaving badly in japan. Heck even then, they still had european contacts.

The gunboat diplomacy didn't bring an end to isolationism. It ended japan's sovereignty and japan's pathetic attempt to keep european colonizers at bay. It was the start of american/european exploitation and colonization of japan.

> the second is the occupation post WWII.

Yes. The only difference being that the former colonization didn't involved war while the latter did.

> Neither of these involved the economic exploitation and imposition of total hegemony that typify imperialistic colonization

Perry went to japan precisely for economic reasons. To expand US whaling to the other side of the pacific since we wiped out all our whales along our shores. And post ww2 colonization is predominantly about economic exploitation. We literally forced japan to tank their economy in the 80s to enrich ourselves.

> After all, we don't generally say that the US colonized West Germany after the war.

But we say that about the soviet union and east germany... Welcome to the wonderful world of propaganda. Where we have allies whom we firebombed and nuked. While the enemy has 'vassals and colonies and satellites'.

Japan is the most poignant example of american economic colonization. It's the longest lasting and most brutal example of it. We just don't see the obvious because we are programmed by propaganda. Just look at all the propaganda in response to my original comment. If china or russia nuked japan and took it over. It would be obvious because the propaganda would tell us so.