this post was submitted on 17 Aug 2025
664 points (93.7% liked)

memes

16890 readers
4123 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/Ads/AI SlopNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.

A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment

Sister communities

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Kawaii

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] lemmyknow@lemmy.today 22 points 1 day ago (7 children)
[–] DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.works 1 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago)

When the US nuked Japan, almost everyone in my homeland (China) knows what's coming next. It maked the end of a terrible age of war, and era of subjugation by inperialists. The japaneese invaders are soon gonna be gone. It was a huge relief.

Then when the news of japan's surrender hits the news, there was celebrations throughout China. And I'm sure those in Korea and various Southeast Asian countries would also be celebrating that.

It would've taken months and possibly years for the US to do a non-nuclear attack of japan, and that would've allowed them to continue doing massacres across Asia. Civillians shouldn't have to die for the crime of their government, but there were not many options, and this was the lesser evil.

[–] psx_crab@lemmy.zip 16 points 1 day ago

As someone from the country that's been conquered by japan: absolutely yes.

[–] Denjin@feddit.uk 25 points 1 day ago (3 children)

It's literally the trolley problem writ large. Do you kill a few hundred thousand civilians to prevent the deaths of probably several million.

[–] gmtom@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago (1 children)

But thats dishonest. It assumes that:

  1. The nuking of Japan was the reason they surrendered

  2. The nukes were gauranteed to make then surrender.

Like would it still have been justified if Japan hadnt surrendered? Then youve committed an atrocity for no reason.

Or what about if it was a different atrocity? Would tourturing a few hundred thousand Japanese to death be justified for the same reason?

[–] lmagitem@lemmy.zip 0 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago)

Especially since it probably wasn't the reason they surrendered. There are multiple papers on the subject. They didn't really grasp the difference between the atomic bombs and regular bombing, and the US were carpet bombing multiple other cities at the time. They probably surrendered because of the Soviet advance after failed talks with them, which definitely reduced their chances to zero.

[–] KoalaUnknown@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago

I used to think along the lines of this too until I visited the Hiroshima Peace Memorial where they tell you about all the ways the US min-maxed the bomb to kill as many people as possible and did it truly as an experiment.

[–] lemmyknow@lemmy.today 3 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Well, idk much about history and politics and war, so I'm just gonna trust 'Muricans claiming they need to bomb other countries to bring peace to the world

[–] Guidy@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

What a lazy and shitty comment.

[–] lemmyknow@lemmy.today -2 points 1 day ago

You're right. I do sometimes put more effort into my comments, but this one was not one of those. I simply chose to inform of my lack of knowledge in the probably important fields needed to understand this event, and then said I'd trust 'Muricans speaking, pointing out the claim that the bombing was needed for peace

[–] NeilBru@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 23 hours ago) (3 children)

What part of @Denjin@feddit.uk's statement do you disagree with?

In the last days of WW2, the Japanese military were getting children to make sharpened bamboo spears and training those children to attack American soldiers on sight. The elderly and women were told that they should kill themselves before potentially coming under American control.

The Japanese civilian population had been indoctrinated into the belief that western soldiers were absolute monsters who would carry out unspeakable acts on them should they become prisoners (ironic considering the IJA/Ns actions during the conflict).

In the battle of Saipan, hundreds of mothers leapt from cliffs with their babies in their arms to evade capture, men would slit their children's throats and booby trapped the bodies to injure Americans and then themselves fought relentlessly, before mostly killing themselves or being killed to prevent capture.

The level of blood shed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was unprecedented but it did in fact save untold Japanese civilian and American soldiers' lives.

Crucially, even after the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima Japanese High Command still refused to surrender.

The Allies had just fought the Battle of Okinawa, the bloodiest battle of the Pacific Theater.

Have you ever even read any of the history of the proposed plan for the invasion of mainland Japan and the casualty estimates? How about the reasoning for opposing the Imperial Japanese Government?

Or Is this your opportunity to virtue signal to people on the internet by implying Americans are murderous pigs and the jApAnEsE dId NoThInG wRoNg?

[–] Jhex@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Americans are murderous pigs and the jApAnEsE dId NoThInG wRoNg?

how about: they are both murderous pigs?

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Just like Ukraine bOmBiNg CiViLiAn TaRgEtS in Russia amirite

Both sides bad I is very smart

(Of course America was bad, but not for bombing Imperial Japan)

[–] absentbird@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago

Arguably fighting against Japan and Germany in WW2 is one of the only times the US used their military in a justifiable way. Fascism had to be stopped.

The Japanese military expected to lose 20 million people in the very first battle of the invasion, and the Americans were considering using poison gas because the casualties of fighting it out in the streets would have been in the millions of troops. People don't realize how dark it was in 1945, food shipments had all but ceased, Japan was entering a famine; if the war had dragged on through a land invasion it would have been cataclysmic.

[–] NeilBru@lemmy.world 2 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

Imperial Japan was far more murderous, in the context of the 2nd World War, which is what this thread is about.

[–] Jhex@lemmy.world 0 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

sure, let's dice and slice the context until the USA is always right

[–] NeilBru@lemmy.world 1 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

In the context of WW2, the United States was morally justified to oppose the Imperial Japanese Government.

[–] Jhex@lemmy.world 1 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) (1 children)

to oppose, sure... to drop 2 nuclear bombs on civilians?? hmmm dunno

[–] NeilBru@lemmy.world 1 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) (1 children)

Knowing the necessity for the defeat of the Imperial Japanese government, the burgeoning country-wide famine, combined with the inevitable bloodbath of a mainland invasion, the Allies justified the use of nuclear weapons, the details of which you can read about in the articles I posted above. Nazi Germany and the USSR were also developing their own nuclear weapon systems. A demonstration was deemed necessary.

I personally would not have authorized dropping the bombs on cities. Easy for me to say. But I certainly would have been living the rest of my days in despair at the mindless slaughter and ritual mass-suicide that would've ensued during the invasion of mainland Japan.

I don't envy the choices the Allies had to make while combatting Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Imperial Japan.

[–] Jhex@lemmy.world 1 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

as opposed to just embargo the island now that all the axis had fallen?

no, America wanted the show of force

[–] DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.works -1 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

embargo is cowardly and it amount to practically doing nothing. There are people being murdered by the japanese military on my homeland. Both the CCP and KMT supported the US actions during WW2 regarding japan.

[–] Jhex@lemmy.world 0 points 12 hours ago

embargo is cowardly

of course, killing civilians is manly

[–] _cryptagion@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 day ago

Americans ***ARE ***murderous pigs, and we haven't changed in the decades since.

[–] lemmyknow@lemmy.today -3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

As I said, I don't know much about history, politics, and war.

[–] NeilBru@lemmy.world 2 points 23 hours ago
[–] NeilBru@lemmy.world 3 points 23 hours ago

Im context, against the Imperial Japanese Government, unfortunately, yes.

[–] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago

more like least path of resistance to peace.

[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 23 hours ago

Yes, when you grow up deep inside the imperial bubble.

[–] Guidy@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Bombing Japan == horrific but better than the alternatives we had.

Though even then there were variables.

https://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2015/08/03/were-there-alternatives-to-the-atomic-bombings/

[–] gmtom@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The alternative of having to let the soviets get a say in what happens to Japan?

[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago)

It's alot easier for them to post a link to a blog than to just say the quiet part out loud.

[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 23 hours ago

Sorry, but repeatedly posting a link to some blog doesn't justify murdering hundreds of thousands, probably millions, of people.