QUOTE(michinobu_zoned @ Nov 16 2006, 01:57 AM) [snapback]2486623[/snapback]
Dude, the thing is, it came around to the wrong people. They didn't do anything to you or to those Korean people. How is it right to do something so terrible to them?
Right... Going along with your idea of Japan "didn't do anything" to anyone, Hitler did not lead the genocide against the Jews, Gypsies, Poles and Russians, not to mention that US never dropped any atomic bombs on Japan.
QUOTE
Germany was defeated without any nukes. The US wanted to try out their new toys, and scare Russia at the same time and chose to experiment on live humans on lived in a non-white country.
Only because the Krauts were fighting on multiple fronts and were running short on materiel and manpower like you would never believe. If it was the Americans alone fighting against the Germans, even money that the Americans would have dropped the bomb on them. But, fortunately, that never happened because of the Brits and the Russkies. As for Japan, however, it was only the Americans (and the British to much lesser extent) who were pushing onwards against the Imperial Japanese Forces. Russia was too busy duking it out with Germany, while China and Australia were too busy trying just to hold their ground.
And you have to ask for what reason the Americans were about to sacrifice more of their own soldiers when they had the awesome weapon of mass destruction that had the sheer power to end the war there and then. Why would you want to give your opponent a fair chance of nailing you in a game of death when you can just whip out the Wild Card and get it done with? Lets say that you have a choice of selection between two weapons in an arena duel of death, one of them being a dinky little rifle and the other being a friggin' battle tank. You can only choose one, and you get to have the first pick and the opponent will be unable to choose the same weapon as what you have chosen. Which would you choose?
QUOTE
Don't you see what you're doing? Japan is worse than Germany? Is anything Japan did worse than what a European country has done?
Actually, they are basically the same. It's just the fact that Germany is fully acknowledging what they have done while Japan is, for the most part, denying everything outright. Try answering some questions below;
1. Is Germany rewriting their own history to spread propaganda amongst its own citizens and beyond that what they have done during the Second World War to be "positive"?
2. Is Germany the one that still brags off about how they were, are, and will be superior even after their downfall?
3. Is Germany completely denying the parts that would make them look bad?
If you've answered "yes" to any of the questions above, then you need to be thrown out into the street and clubbed so hard in the face with a baseball bat that your grandchildren will be born with the same exact injury.
QUOTE
Look at the Hispanic countries, they're the bastard race of Spain and Indians, formed from rape and slavery. Never has Spain apologized for what it has done. These people are actually don't hold any grudges towards Spain.
Now you are going off-topic here. Can you explain why you would want to tap into something that A) no one really cares and B) is irrelevant? That's like comparing salt to sugar; they both look just about the same, but they taste completely different.
QUOTE
Maybe if Japan stayed long enough to where everyone in China and Korea spoke Japanese, you'd be like "Oh, I love how Japan came into my country and civilized my backward ancestors!" Much like latin Americans are today.
Japan "stayed" long enough? Nobody else except for Japanese themselves wanted them to be in China and Korea in the first place, not to mention that Japan never took complete control of China. Oh, and, did I mention that Koreans are more influential in Japan than you would think right now? It looks as if Japan's plan backfired.
And try not to get Latin America involved in any of this. They are already irrelevant to this topic, not to mention that it's as if none of the countries down there can hold on to a stable form of government for more than 15 years, as well as all the questionable and illegal activities that are spurring up for God-knows-how-long.
QUOTE(Vitality @ Nov 16 2006, 02:48 AM) [snapback]2486708[/snapback]
Japan was about to surrender so it was never necessary.
You also need to catch up on some history there, since the Japanese leadership was so fragmented near the end of the war that, although their Navy wanted to surrender, the Army wanted to keep going until the very end, with that puppet of a wannabe emperor Hirohito caught squarely in the middle. So while they were busy trying to make up their mind, more and more people were dying as seconds ticked by. Who knows, it might have taken days, weeks, months, or even years to get both branches of the military to agree to surrender. And if it indeed take such long time, the Americans would have already hit the beaches of mainland Japan and would have fought their way through, all the way to the front doorstep of Hirohito, unnecesarily sacrificing more lives of the American soldiers as well as Japanese soldiers, Korean conscripts and even more Japanese civilians. If 140,000--and that's a conservative number, by the way--civilian casualties from dropping two atomic bombs in a brief moment is what it takes to prevent 14 million civilian casualties from a prolonged and bloody conflict, you really can't argue which one has less negative result.