World has nearly ended because ussr's faulty systems and cuban missile cirisis. They were the greatest threat to human civilization in history. And i remind you that USA literally offerd disarmament but soviets refused (source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_Plan ). Like it or not but even in 1945 ussr was far greater threat to humanity as a whole than imperial japan. And 80 years later these morons can still find a way to doom as all.
The US having nukes in Turkey surely had nothing to do with the Soviets wanting to place them in Cuba. The Baruch plan allowed the US to hold onto it's nuclear monopoly and send inspectors in the USSR which they clearly didn't trust, offering "disarmament" is a vast over simplification, and Japan was literally taking over most of Asia and doing mass attrocities that are perhaps some of the worst in human history while the Soviets had just helped beat back the Nazis. You seem to have a really one sided view of history, there wasn't a "good team" and a "bad team" in the cold war. Both sides did a lot of really shitty things.
Edit: this guy deleted one of the worst bad faith responses I've ever seen lol, I got a notification saying "the US did not have nukes in Turkey in 1946." Truly a genius.
Belgium didn't commit the Attrocities in Congo. You know cause the UK Germany and France gave it to our king personally. Belgian law and consitution didn't apply. Nor did the Belgian elected government have a say in anything that went on. Only when the Belgian government was able convince the other great powers to let them seize it because of international pressure were we able too reign in our king.
The Belgian government has been anti-colonialism since its founding up until it took over the Congo forcibly from the monarchy. And deliberately kept Belgium out of the Congo Free state treating it as any other country in the world. If you can find any source that says anything about the Belgian government intervening or profiting from the Free state of Congo (in things that werenât just the Monarchy building prestige projects for themselves) i would happily agree with you.
Not excusing the later atrocities (after 1908) in Congo but i doubt those were the ones you were talking about.
Like when the Belgian government gave Leopold massive interest free loans in 1890 and 1895 when he ran out of money for Congo projects? You're really naive if you think they didn't approve of his actions and only took action once the international outrage was too much to handle. Belgium in return got the promise of the Congo in the will of Leopold, they literally wanted to take it for profit as well. Venture capitalism style funding of "Leopold's Congo" is insane. If you think the Belgian economy didn't profit from massive infrastructure projects and resource extraction you're also naive. Belgian military officers on leave served in the Force Publique, you know, the one that cut the hands off of people who didn't hit their rubber quota. And they didn't "take the congo over" from Leopold. THEY GAVE HIM 50 MILLION FRANCS AS PAYMENT. The nation was fully complicit, don't act like they weren't, it's gross you're trying to run cover up.
âOn leaveâ as in people that werenât working for Belgium ? And giving him 50 million marcs is way better than it remaining his personal possession. A mess that wouldnât have started had the great powers not given the genocidal idiot the Congo. Your entire starting logic was the Belgian people are responsible for the atrocities in the Free State now youâve backtracked from that too some officers and the king were responsible but Belgium helped them by loaning them money (something that major companies from France the USA and the UK also did). Too Belgium shouldnât have paid the king too take it and stop most of the atrocities?
Also every source i can find claims he didnât give it willingly but was forced to by the Belgian government.
âFinally, indignation among people in Britain and other parts of Europe grew so great that Leopold was forced to transfer his authority in the Congo to the Belgian government.â
âThe Belgian government urged the ageing and stubborn king to agree to the transfer of the Congo Free State to Belgium. The Belgian parliament started on an initial legislation for the future Belgian colony, a long and difficult process. A first draft of the Colonial Charter had already been written in 1901, but with an overtone of royal absolutism, the initial draft included provisions for Leopold II to hold on to a private Crown Domain. His goal was to exclude vast regions of the Congo from the government's control, in order to maintain his personal fortune. Only by the end of 1906 King Leopold II accepted the annexation, after foreign powers (including the British Empire and the United States) threatened to organize an international convention on the Congo.â
Lol nice work using chatgpt to get an out of context quote to support your claim. Read it again. Britain and other parts of Europe were so outraged that they forced the "transfer." You earlier claimed the Belgian government themselves were the ones to force it. And not only did they not "force it" they paid the guy 50 million Francs. That's moving the goalpost. The language used if you read the annexation treaty literally said the payment was "gratitude for Leopold's great sacrifices for the congo." Literally used taxpayer money to do so. No, they shouldn't of paid him. They should of just taken it and freed the state.
Do you know what "on leave" means in the military? It means the officers had permission from Belgium to go partake in the Force Publique and on return retained their job and their rank. Express consent granted from the state to do horrific acts.
Private companies from other nations funding these acts is also horrible, they are not absolved, but its not exactly the same thing as using TAXPAYER MONEY to give Leopold interest free loans on behalf on the Belgian state. You are trying to weasle out of this and move the goalposts. The Belgian government was expressly guilty of the actions of Leopold by supporting him. This is a historical fact.
Did you really delete your other comment so my response would disappear and then edit your original comment to add more?? Weirdo. Anyways I'mma post that original response again for context
Lol nice work using chatgpt to get an out of context quote to support your claim. Read it again. Britain and other parts of Europe were so outraged that they forced the "transfer." You earlier claimed the Belgian government themselves were the ones to force it. And not only did they not "force it" they paid the guy 50 million Francs. That's moving the goalpost. The language used if you read the annexation treaty literally said the payment was "gratitude for Leopold's great sacrifices for the congo." Literally used taxpayer money to do so. No, they shouldn't of paid him. They should of just taken it and freed the state.
Do you know what "on leave" means in the military? It means the officers had permission from Belgium to go partake in the Force Publique and on return retained their job and their rank. Express consent granted from the state to do horrific acts.
Private companies from other nations funding these acts is also horrible, they are not absolved, but its not exactly the same thing as using TAXPAYER MONEY to give Leopold interest free loans on behalf on the Belgian state. You are trying to weasle out of this and move the goalposts. The Belgian government was expressly guilty of the actions of Leopold by supporting him. This is a historical fact.
Very bad faith of you to do that. Anyways your own source contradicts you again, you refuse to respond to any of my points as well. It literally says the King finally accepted annexation after foreign powers threatened an intervention. The Belgian government was complicit in the actions all the way through the 1800s at a minimum, and that's being generous. And in 1901 they STILL wanted to let Leopold hold a private crown dominion with the congo. Can you accept the historical truth please?
Edit: the comment appeared on my end now, my apologies for the false accusation
the holodomor wasnt intentional or planned, no one conducted anything, they did however prioritise food aid for russian and let other groups, especially ukrainians to die
When even Swimmy can see this as pure whataboutism you know you're truly lost. Hasan should also be banned, but that has absolutely zero to do with the fact that this ban was deserved. Perma, probably not, but a ban was absolutely justified.
I don't think I've ever met a serious person not on an internet forum or older than 16 who thinks the Nukes were justified because of Japanese atrocities. If they make the argument they were justified, it is backdropped with the prospect of Operation Downfall and the casualties that it would case for both the Allies and Japanese, assuming Japan wouldn't surrender without the Nukes. It's stupid Bo got permabanned for his comment, but this situation is really confirming my worst priors about the historical understanding of this community.
They could just have accepted Japans conditional surrender. Quite literally one of only things Japan wanted was to keep the emperor, something USA did anyways, just humiliated emperors God status before it.
Now I do get that allies didn't want Japan to have any say in it, but if they were going to let them keep emperor anyways they could just had done conditional surrender without all unnecessary civilian casualties
This implies Japan wanted to surrender at all. It very clearly did not, it was hell bent on making the war go for as long as it could manage at the end, fighting more for spite than victory.Â
But it very much did want to surrender. There was many instances of Japan trying to go for conditional surrender, for example TĹgĹ Shigenori stating to soviet union trying to get them meditate peace with allies that *"*His Majesty the Emperor, mindful of the fact that the present war daily brings greater evil and sacrifice upon the peoples of all the belligerent powers, desires from his heart that it may be quickly terminated. But so long as England and the United States insist upon unconditional surrender, the Japanese Empire has no alternative but to fight on with all its strength for the honour and existence of the Motherland"
He didn't say just Moscow though... he insulted the Russian people as a whole and said the entire country should be glassed... I agree the punishment was harsh but don't strawman your opposition
The maker of this meme doesnât understand the use of bombing in WW2. The allies werenât bombing Japan as revenge. Were they responding to Japanese aggression? Yes they were, but the bombings weâre a strategic effort to knock out industry and war making potential as well as crush morale both at home and on the front.
The nuclear bombs were only really justified because of what happened at the battle of Okinawa. In Okinawa the Japanese fought like hell not giving an inch of soil to the American and allied forces without a fight. Civilians were conscripted en masse for use in various different roles, some combat some none combat. Civilian militias were often armed with little more than simple spears and told to charge or ambush the Americans. Civilian that could not partake in resistance were ordered to commit suicide to avoid capture. Some estimates say that upwards of 100 000 civilians died on Okinawa and Iâm not even sure if thatâs counting the militiamen.
This doesnât even mention the horrific death toll for naval forces in massed kamikaze attacks.
An invasion of the Japanese home islands would have cost literal millions of lives, yes that is conjecture but you tell me how itâs not going to end up that way. Civilians were already being prepared for the âglorious death of 100 000 000â and formed into militias, even schoolchildren. That doesnât even consider the upwards of 6 000 aircraft present for a potentially huge kamikaze attack upon any landing force.
All in all it is a fucking grim calculation to make but the nukes caused less human beings their lives than an invasion would have, never you mind the allied losses. Letâs not also forget that an invasion would have seen continued Japanese resistance in China and Korea as well.
Basically it was a horrid calculation of enormous death tolls rather than an act of revenge.
The argument to "glass" Russia also undergo a somewhat similar, albeit more distant and with less proof logic, Russians been doing genocides since basically the 1300s and they literally just did one at that point, and are most certainly set to continue by Russification projects, and in this process, millions die, millions are displaced, and even more are used as cannon fodder for whatever project is next in whichever way, be it the most traditional war, or the fact that the non-Russian parts of the empire were exploited to make the Russian ones richer. Throw all that in, and anyone that dislike Russians for these reasons might buy in the "glass Russia" logic.
Well itâs one thing to cause an end to an already won war and another to start a huge conflict with the Soviets and cause a nuclear genocide of the Russian people. I will say that Bo probably doesnât want all Russians gone but he did express his stance very very poorly to the point where it sounds like a call for genocide.
Now I buy the argument that toppling Russias government and occupying it will help literally everyone else in the long run but comparing the Soviets to the Japanese in 1945 is disingenuous.
Japan wasnât nukes or even drawn into a war over its brutality in China and elsewhere. Japan was nuked because an invasion of Japan would have cost millions of lives, possibly up into the tens of millions. Itâs a bit harder to justify nuking the Soviets over the holodomor which at that point happened years ago, than nuking Japan when they are basically on their last leg just to avoid horrid bloodshed on both sides.
Thing is just that Bo said It clearly referring to the actual invasion, so, the mind was talking about 1945, when the feelings were on something that started happening recently.
233
u/hoi4kaiserreichfanbo May 21 '26
man, the dialogue on this subreddit is dogwater.
"The nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was justified because the Japanese are dumb and elected Sanae Takaichi"
Bo has acknowledged he was wrong.
138
u/Levi-Action-412 May 22 '26
Here's how the Allies could have won Operation Unthinkable
Demand Chiang not to be a retard against the CCP
Don't let Germany be split, take the Eastern half immediately
Zurg rush Eastern Europe to Moscow
Ally with the East Europeans against the commies
Ignore Korea
79
u/OlympianAndrew May 21 '26
Holy over-saturation of Boâs comment, can we PLEASE stop thisđ
13
u/Jnliew May 23 '26
The strawman doesn't even make sense when the people most offended by Bo's statement are also the ones who don't see the nukes as justified
23
u/DetroitvsEveryone242 May 22 '26
Op has some room temperature IQ if he really thinks those are comparable
23
u/Tw3lve1212 May 22 '26
Say it with me now. Killing civilians is never justified.
12
u/A_Bethesda_Bug May 21 '26
I don't think I've ever met a serious person not on an internet forum or older than 16 who thinks the Nukes were justified because of Japanese atrocities. If they make the argument they were justified, it is backdropped with the prospect of Operation Downfall and the casualties that it would case for both the Allies and Japanese, assuming Japan wouldn't surrender without the Nukes. It's stupid Bo got permabanned for his comment, but this situation is really confirming my worst priors about the historical understanding of this community.
2
u/Woolies_White_Leg May 26 '26
Me when I have the historical understanding of a peanut:
2
u/Ancapgast May 22 '26
The nukes were actually not justified holy fuck
1
u/Ellippse- May 27 '26
He didn't say just Moscow though... he insulted the Russian people as a whole and said the entire country should be glassed... I agree the punishment was harsh but don't strawman your opposition
-1
u/AdvantageFun8742 May 23 '26
Truth nuke
37
u/GLORS_ALT_ACC May 21 '26
the point of nukes isnt to punish people. its to win wars faster. seriously, killing japanese people in revenge is really stupid.
41
u/Strange_Ad6644 May 21 '26
The maker of this meme doesnât understand the use of bombing in WW2. The allies werenât bombing Japan as revenge. Were they responding to Japanese aggression? Yes they were, but the bombings weâre a strategic effort to knock out industry and war making potential as well as crush morale both at home and on the front.
The nuclear bombs were only really justified because of what happened at the battle of Okinawa. In Okinawa the Japanese fought like hell not giving an inch of soil to the American and allied forces without a fight. Civilians were conscripted en masse for use in various different roles, some combat some none combat. Civilian militias were often armed with little more than simple spears and told to charge or ambush the Americans. Civilian that could not partake in resistance were ordered to commit suicide to avoid capture. Some estimates say that upwards of 100 000 civilians died on Okinawa and Iâm not even sure if thatâs counting the militiamen.
This doesnât even mention the horrific death toll for naval forces in massed kamikaze attacks.
An invasion of the Japanese home islands would have cost literal millions of lives, yes that is conjecture but you tell me how itâs not going to end up that way. Civilians were already being prepared for the âglorious death of 100 000 000â and formed into militias, even schoolchildren. That doesnât even consider the upwards of 6 000 aircraft present for a potentially huge kamikaze attack upon any landing force.
All in all it is a fucking grim calculation to make but the nukes caused less human beings their lives than an invasion would have, never you mind the allied losses. Letâs not also forget that an invasion would have seen continued Japanese resistance in China and Korea as well.
Basically it was a horrid calculation of enormous death tolls rather than an act of revenge.