>killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians is...

>killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians is... is all about me

Schizophrenic Conspiracy Theorist Shirt $21.68

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

Schizophrenic Conspiracy Theorist Shirt $21.68

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    That's why Truman shat on him, he was just a self-absorbed butthole.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >That's why Truman shat on him, he was just a self-absorbed butthole.

      He only cared about how he was seen, and how the history books saw him. Plus he's suspected to have socialits sympathies, so he was seething that it might be used against hte USSR.

      Truman was based and red pilled.

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >"The big bomb that I designed to kill people was used to kill people!"

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The real Oppenheimer was only mad because he couldn't kill Germans with it. After the bomb successfully detonated, he toasted with his fellow israeli communists how they would use it to exterminate Germans. Then based Truman used it on the japs instead and sent that weepy cretin packing

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      They should have wiped out every German.

      War of extermination means war of extermination. You declare one and lose, you get wiped out. Simple as.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Black person, have you looked at your country recently? The allies didn't just genocide Germans, they also genocided themselves those moronic homosexuals.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Don't you have a toilet to unclog, Jerzy?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        lmao you fricking goy, i too base my knowledge of history from public schooling

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        ||
        ||>
        ||&
        ||
        ||

        I wonder who's behind this post...

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          now I finally understand why the israelite is hiding behind the post, I always thought he was just being sinister

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Goodest goy
        Bluest pill
        Deepest sleep

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Bro we enslaved Germany to an eternally humiliating degree. America outright blew up Germany's power infrastructure recently and the krauts didn't do anything about it except beg to lick our feet harder.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Nuke israel

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        if it didn't happen that meant the allies were too weak to do it. Cope, Seethe, & Dilate israelite

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        shalom

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >The real Oppenheimer
      The real Oppenheimer were the friends we made on the way.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >AAAND THEN THE HECKIN BASED FREEMASON DROPPED AN ATOMIC BOMB ON THE BIGGEST CHRISTIAN CITY IN THE COUNTRY, AWESOME!!

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Really ? They were most Christian cities in Nippon

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Given Japan's record of persecuting Christians, who cares?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          the 37,000 christians attempted a rebellion and failed, they deserved their fate

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      When it was proposed that a controlled demonstration of the destructive power of the atomic bombs be made for international observers, Oppenheimer opined that after so much work it was unthinkable that the bomb not be dropped on the enemy.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Sorry Heimy, I used it to vaporise the only empire that likes you people. Do you want some matzah? Hahaha Get this cretin away from me.

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >The bomb that was intended to kill le people exploded?

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >noooo no hydrogen bombs it's my bomb!!!
    >years later
    >hydrogen bomb
    >huge ass reaction
    >insane compared to oppies bomb

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Dude, the bomb is good because it ended the war quickly and that saved many lives

    This excuse is embarrassing. The bad guys won

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The USA did Japan a favor, if they didnt take over and help rebuild the country, they'd get eaten alive by China looking for revenge.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Japan became a vassal state of the United States. I'm sure they are really enjoying their worthless treasury bonds.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Imagine how many lives would've been saved if Hitler won. No war in the middle east, no paki rape gangs, no Black folk causing terror, no israelites destroying the lives of millions of people, etc.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The USA did Japan a favor, if they didnt take over and help rebuild the country, they'd get eaten alive by China looking for revenge.

      >This excuse is embarrassing.
      its not an excuse, its a fact.
      >america could just continue fire-bombing japan like it was doing for the last 2 years, slowly roast-cooking the entire japanese population
      >hundreds of thousands die every single day
      or
      >DROP 2 MOTHERFRICKING NUKES ON THEIR ASS
      >they give up 5 minutes later
      America really did do a favor to them by dropping nukes.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >its not an excuse
        It is. You're just doing moronic mental gymnastics to justify their actions. Just askbany American what if he'd nuke Japan and you can see for yourself how bloodthirsty they are.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Tfw mutts are literally brainwashed to accept this psychopath thinking
          No wonder you castrate yourself right now at an alarming rate 1% turned into 25% within fricking 5 years
          2020 taught the world : leave mutt alone in his home for 1 year and watch how it becomes a "she"
          Meanwhile you can't even take responsibility, instead blaming KGB brainwashing and whatever the frick.
          moronic children the "nation"
          Truly, truly.

          >no point, just screeching
          sad.
          ill say again:
          >america could just continue fire-bombing japan like it was doing for the last 2 years, slowly roast-cooking the entire japanese population
          >hundreds of thousands die every single day
          or
          >DROP 2 MOTHERFRICKING NUKES ON THEIR ASS
          >they give up 5 minutes later

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            They’re saying even if what you say is true, dropping the nuke was an awesome and fun toy directly meant to strike fear across the planet and to end history with the USA as a dominating military force on the globe, to the joy of all Americans involved, and to the point where Europe then actively reduced arms so as to become America’s military subordinate in its wake

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >nd to the point where Europe then actively reduced arms so as to become America’s military subordinate in its wake
              blame the germans for this, not america.

              Jape were already surrendering Before 1st nuke you moronic brainwashed mutt

              lol no they werent.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >blame the Germans for this
                Yeah WW2 was already happening when America found and used their position to take over the planet by terrifying it with nuclear weapons. ‘If we launch this, we will become the most powerful nation in the world and have even our strongest competitors in a vice grip for what we hope is the rest of history’, it’s that simple

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                yup, germans always ruined europe, america just used a free opportunity the stupid germans gave them on a silver platter.

                >lol
                Yeah, entire being of muttgroid encapsulated
                It shall be blind and deaf and moronic until expiration date.

                >dude trust me japs were already begging to surrender before the nukes dropped, it came to me in a dream
                ok.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Right, it was the perfect chance to kill 100,000+ people in a moment to take over the world using superweapons. I’m glad we agree, it is what it is

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                america could kill 10,000,000 by slowly roast cooking them every single day with carpet bombing.
                >america showed pity and mercy on the enemy and dropped 2 nukes on them instead
                : )

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                No it had to be a gigantic pillar of hellfire or it wouldn’t mean world domination, yes it was mercy but yes it was the flashiest most bombastic ideal fear-striking option, what a good day

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >lol
                Yeah, entire being of muttgroid encapsulated
                It shall be blind and deaf and moronic until expiration date.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >blame the germans for this, not america
                The germans dropped two atomic bombs?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Well ... Americans dropped them, but they had German (israeli) refugees build them. So in a way, German israeli scientists are responsible for it, by the same logic that means German israeli (and communist/socialist) slave workers in ammunition factories were responisble for every allied soldier shot by a nazi footsoldier on the battlefield.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                What a pathetic stretch of an agenda

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Jape were already surrendering Before 1st nuke you moronic brainwashed mutt

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >they just wanted to keep le Emperor in power and they got bombed anyway!

              You gonna say this next and REALLY show off your historical illiteracy?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Now Russia has more powerful weapons.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >Now Russia has more powerful weapons.
              yes, starvation and alcoholism.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >starvation
                Where? Or you think that if Russians don't eat transdogshit means that they starving?
                >alcoholism
                Will be always better than self mutilationism

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                eternal shithole.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >muttgroid posting mutt propaganda
                Enjoy shlomos cum inside your neo vegana, I guess

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >propaganda

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Enjoy bum towns in the middle of your bootifeel first world cities while coping with it using internet muttgroid memes you "queen"

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                your entire "nation" is a bum town lmao

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Only in your mutt dreams or delusions
                Literally imagine having cracks in the hole in The "richest" city ever known by everyone in the world because of capeshit and have cracks in the ground where you can see what's happening in subway (that looks like absolute dogshit btw)
                Or certain parts of this city literally Indistinguishable from dirtiest town somewhere in a fricking Thailand

                Only possible in USA

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                whatever floats your boat, HIV infected assraped krokBlack person

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I am absolutely clean and only ever had sex with biological women, don't project on me your hobbies you muttgroidgayBlack person troony!
                Thanks for funny meme btw

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Enjoy getting conscripted and dying in the forever war

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Another delusion from troonygroid.
                Honestly it's really no surprise and literally follows

                Tfw mutts are literally brainwashed to accept this psychopath thinking
                No wonder you castrate yourself right now at an alarming rate 1% turned into 25% within fricking 5 years
                2020 taught the world : leave mutt alone in his home for 1 year and watch how it becomes a "she"
                Meanwhile you can't even take responsibility, instead blaming KGB brainwashing and whatever the frick.
                moronic children the "nation"
                Truly, truly.

                to the letter
                Which is the truth. And fun thing about truth is that it will be so either way, no matter someone's delusions.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Tfw mutts are literally brainwashed to accept this psychopath thinking
        No wonder you castrate yourself right now at an alarming rate 1% turned into 25% within fricking 5 years
        2020 taught the world : leave mutt alone in his home for 1 year and watch how it becomes a "she"
        Meanwhile you can't even take responsibility, instead blaming KGB brainwashing and whatever the frick.
        moronic children the "nation"
        Truly, truly.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >1% turned into 25%
          Do you realize how pathetic it comes off when you make up things to get scared of?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I don't need to be scared of troonism, it's you who need to be scared about forever dooming your own bloodline and an absolute decline is scientific method.
            I just state facts.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >NOOOOO NOT THE HECKIN' CIVILIANS!! WHY ARE THE ALLIES SUCH EVIL PEOPLE PLEASE SOMONE, ANYONE, THINK OF THE INNOCENT JAPANESE AND GERMANS!!!!!1!!

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Soviet Union
            >China
            Starving your own population to death doesn't make you a victim.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Except USSR didn't nuke Japs and they actually executed unit 731 people instead of working with them like US did. USSR didn't do Dresden or any other inhumane Black person shit, deaths of civilians doesn't cover for deaths of civilians (and combatants )
            Everything from Repressions to grand rape of Berlin is blown out propaganda by seething westoid Black folk who don't know how to fight honorably and now their sons go to doctors and ask to cut their penises and balls and invert what's left. Funny.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >Except USSR didn't nuke Japs
              That's because the USSR didn;t have nukes.
              >they actually executed unit 731 people instead of working with them like US did.
              The Soviets took even more German scientists than the USA and appropriated as much German tech as they could after the war.
              >USSR didn't do Dresden or any other inhumane Black person shit, deaths of civilians doesn't cover for deaths of civilians (and combatants )
              Katyn Massacre

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Yes more muttgroid propaganda, sure, I am very starving right now

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >soulless commies trying to save their own skin by sending human waves into the battlefield that get promptly gunned down is somehow the axis' fault

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Enjoy your open borders and your anti-white Marxist movement. It seems that karma is real

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          What country are you from?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Give it a rest. They'll never actually say

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >well yeah ok dropping the nukes on Japan was 100% justified and right but but but.... AAAHHH FRICK YOUUUUUU!
          sad.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It 100% wasn't you muttgroid.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            If nuking Japan was "100% justified" because ... they dared to participate in a war, I guess ... maybe we really should nuke the US already?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            if you were Arab you'd be telling everyone how 9/11 was justified only then you'd be closer to the truth

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        [...]
        >no point, just screeching
        sad.
        ill say again:
        >america could just continue fire-bombing japan like it was doing for the last 2 years, slowly roast-cooking the entire japanese population
        >hundreds of thousands die every single day
        or
        >DROP 2 MOTHERFRICKING NUKES ON THEIR ASS
        >they give up 5 minutes later

        What is this strawman crap? There's no indication that Japan would hold out for an additional 2 years against the US and USSR.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >an additional 2 years
          dat reading comprehension

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        There was at least one attempted coup (and I think a 2nd) even after the Emperor surrendered. Thousands of Japanese officers committed suicide out of shame as well. This was after two nukes. An actual invasion of Japan would have been just as destructive as the ground invasion of Germany.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >just as destructive as the ground invasion of Germany.
          The only "destructive" thing about the ground invasion of Germany was the soviets raping masses of little girls and a few old women.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      but it did do that

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        It saved a few hundred (at best) uncultured uneducated bloodthirsty brutish American Army conscripts at the expense of tens of thousands of Japanese children, yes.
        Well done, Murica.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Well maybe Japan shouldn't have started shit then. It's not like they were above killing children (not that the pussies would ever admit to their crimes).

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Well maybe Japan shouldn't have started shit then.
            Fun fact: Japan didn't start shit.
            I know that's not what your teachers told you over there in Arkansas, but it was you who "started shit".

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Educate me then. I don't consider America not selling Japan oil to be "starting" an armed conflict. A country is free to not sell their goods to another country doing stuff they don't agree with. Not stopping Pearl Harbor from happening since American intelligence knew the attack was coming is also not necessarily "starting shit" either. So how exactly did America start the fight with the Japanese Empire?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                No matter how much trade and support we were doing for their enemies, they attacked a navy base hoping to completely wipe out our naval power in the west, and they failed, and that surviving navy came and destroyed them. So what. They knew what was going to happen right when they failed

                >I don't consider America not selling Japan oil to be "starting" an armed conflict.
                >No matter how much trade and support we were doing for their enemies
                It's cute how Americans nowadays think that America's conflict with Japan started in the 20th century over some oil.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                It's cute how you aren't saying what nonsense you think actually did start the Pacific war.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >you aren't saying

                >Japan attacked america because we’re ancestral enemies
                Just say what america did that makes you think we started the fight with Japan

                >ancestral enemies
                Case in point. You guys have not the slightest idea what bullshit imperialist policies of yours literally turned the Pacific into the powder keg that exploded in WW2.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Why don't you tell the class how America initiated the conflict with Japan in the 1940s rather then be a coy little gay

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >in the 1940s
                Do you even read the posts you reply to, imbecile?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You have a free platform to explain your point in any way you want. What did america do, when, to warrant Japan’s strike? Please explain, I am really listening

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You still haven't said anything. You're just acting like a sperg

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Just explain how america threw the first stone! I’ve been asking out of sincere curiosity and desire to learn for two posts now, you’re right, I’m asking because I don’t know what your claim is and I’d like to know!

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                My best guess is he is either trolling , stupid or genuinely might be thinking of when the USA coerced Japan into opening itself up to the world in the mid 1940s.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                1840s****

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                My best guess is he is either trolling , stupid or genuinely might be thinking of when the USA coerced Japan into opening itself up to the world in the mid 1940s.

                If that is what anon means, it’s just not an innocent reason to your new empire to make retaliatory strikes over past offenses.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                To use* your new empire for retaliatory strikes for past offenses

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >retaliatory strikes for past offenses
                American education, everyone. Thinking that stuff just happens in isolation, then is done and immediately becomes a "past offence" rather than an ongoing dependency.
                That's why Americans literally don't understand why the whole middle east is a powder keg, despite them retracting their armies from there and only occasionally order a drone strike or air raid.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I’m left guessing because you won’t just say what the deal is. Give me a small selection of American offenses against the Japanese in that era and I am 75% likely to agree with you from here on out. I’m telling you I am really willing to learn here but I need more than just google, you sound like you have a strong case if you would just share it

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You still haven't said anything. Just some trite platitudes about how history doesn't occur in a vacuum. Grow some balls and just say you think America deserved it for the Perry expedition and encroaching in East Asia

                I've said everything I needed to say already, and you keep ignoring it: It was the USA that set up the very playing field for WW2 in East Asia. The US basically gained control over all of East Asia economically, and kept explointing ALL parties, not just Japan. The US did not "get dragged" into WW2, as the popular claim is, but instead tried playing the conflict for their own gain, all the while maintaining heavy military presence in the area to enforce their own economic interests. In other words, they didn't just refuse to trade with Japan, but due to historical precedents and control of the area, also made sure that trading with anyone else was basically impossible for Japan. And at the same time the US tried to play China and make them their vassal. Just to play the victim when one of their own MILITARY BASES IN THE PACIFIC was attacked. Unprovoked, they said.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Fair enough

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                None of this is true, btw.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Kek. Sure, keep living in your "we never did anything wrong" headcanon then.
                Another 9/11 cannot happen soon enough. Maybe then you'll start to realize.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Most gains in human life expectancy and world popuatlion are because of America and the West lmao.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Another 9/11 cannot happen soon enough
                Americans today will apologize to the muslims

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Another 9/11 will happen as soon as our government thinks its time to cook another one up.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Country uses non-violent means to gain strategic advances in an region its not even part of
                >Native country chimps out and murders people out of jealousy
                Thanks for the detailed explanation of how Japan struck first in the war they ended up getting btfo'd in.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Country uses non-violent means to gain strategic advances in an region its not even part of
                They literally used the thread of (naval) warfare to establish their position in the region in the 19th century. How is that non-violent?
                >Native country chimps out and murders people out of jealousy
                It has nothing to do with jealousy and nobody "chimped out". In fact, Japan kept their cool about it for almost a century, until the US started exploting its economical power to play political games and tried to rob Japan of any agency.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >NOOOO!!!1! STOP HAVING TRADE RELATIONS WITH CHINA AND THAILAND NOW I HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO TAKE OVER TAIWAN AND ATTACK AUSTRALIA!!!

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >I can just pull out of my conflict in China and accept my status as a major regional player
                >instead I'll double down and start conflicts with every single other regional power as well
                >you forced us to do this

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                But anon, they wanted to be a big bad empire too! It was the birthright!

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                They tried and failed to make an empire in the 1590s. They tried and failed again in the 20th century. God willed for them to be stuck on that island.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >I can just pull out of my conflict in China and accept my status as a major regional player
                >instead I'll double down and start conflicts with every single other regional power as well
                >you forced us to do this

                Are you fricking moronic?
                What gives Americans the right to dictate to another country which conflicts (some of which predate American meddling in the region by centuries) it is allowed to have?
                Also, I think you're missing what was actually happening in the region. It was not about the US having trade relations, it was about the US forcing or blocking trade unilaterally.

                >with every single other regional power
                There basically only were two regional powers: Japan and China. Korea was a non-issue, just a bargaining chip at best. No one cared about the smaller countries.
                Russia got involved in China at times, the US had massive economical interests, but neither of those two powers was regional.

                Military power projection isn't inherently violent. And Pearl Harbor was a futile ape out, plain and simple. Also: [...]

                >Military power projection isn't inherently violent.
                Keep that attitude and see the US go down in flames in the not too far future.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >What gives Americans the right to dictate to another country which conflicts (some of which predate American meddling in the region by centuries) it is allowed to have?
                What gives the Japs the right to inflict total war on neighboring states for the sake of expansionism?

                >It was not about the US having trade relations, it was about the US forcing or blocking trade unilaterally.
                The US cant force other Western oil producers to deny an agressor an important strategic resource.

                >There basically only were two regional powers
                Except for multiple Allied powers and their colonial holdings.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >What gives the Japs the right to inflict total war on neighboring states for the sake of expansionism?
                First, look up what "total war" means.
                Second: Expanionist wars were not outlawed back then, except via indvidual treaties between parties. They weren't even a rarity. And the USA weren't in any position to police non-existing treaties. (They still aren't today, even though they seem to think they are.)
                >The US cant force other Western oil producers to deny an agressor an important strategic resource.
                Nice job proving that you do not understand pre-globalist trading and trade routes.
                >multiple Allied powers and their colonial holdings.
                You said "regional". Not my fault you narrowed the point to those native in the region rather than outside players.

                >What gives Americans the right to dictate to another country which conflicts (some of which predate American meddling in the region by centuries) it is allowed to have?

                Economic coercion is nothing new in the world of realpolitik. If you want to sit at a table with the superpowers you can't cry foul when they're just playing the game

                >Economic coercion is nothing new in the world of realpolitik.
                And neither is getting to reap what you sow.
                You cannot use continuous military threat and then claim to be non-agressive.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >You cannot use continuous military threat and then claim to be non-agressive.

                Yes they can

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Okay. You can. But no one will take you seriously for doing so.

                >And neither is getting to reap what you sow.
                >You cannot use continuous military threat and then claim to be non-agressive.

                Imagine writing this out without a shred of self awareness lmao

                >without a shred of self awareness
                Really hoping for another 9/11. The middle east will help you out with your self awareness.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >9/11
                >an operation carryout by middle easterners
                Lol

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >And neither is getting to reap what you sow.
                >You cannot use continuous military threat and then claim to be non-agressive.

                Imagine writing this out without a shred of self awareness lmao

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                LMAO Even by this moron's clown logic the US did nothing that Japan themselves and basically every nation throughout human history didn't also do, Japan STILL started it, and they deserved everything they got. This man has overdosed on "muh murrica bad" propaganda so hard his brain broke.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Hopefully you dilated today "sis"

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >First, look up what "total war" means.
                Not an argument. Bombing civilian targets, execution of POWs and mass reprisals against civilians are pretty indicative of total war lol

                >Nice job proving that you do not understand pre-globalist trading and trade routes.
                Nice non argument. Show me where the US coerced other powers into signing an embargo

                >You said "regional". Not my fault you narrowed the point to those native in the region rather than outside players.
                Imagine being wrong and pedantic at the same time. Just because Paris isn't in Cambodia doesn't mean they lacked interests in the region.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Bombing civilian targets, execution of POWs and mass reprisals against civilians are pretty indicative of total war lol
                No. again, look up what it means.
                >Show me where the US coerced other powers into signing an embargo
                I repeat: You do not understand trade routes.
                >Just because Paris isn't in Cambodia doesn't mean they lacked interests in the region.
                Imagine insisting on calling France a "regional power" of Asia.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >I repeat: You do not understand trade routes.
                Enlighten me then. Did the US coerce the Dutch and British with an embargo of their own? You're not actually making an argument.

                >Imagine insisting on calling France a "regional power" of Asia.
                They absolutely were during the period they maintained large colonial interests there you imbecile

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Did the US coerce the Dutch and British with an embargo of their own?
                You. Do. Not. Understand. Trade. Routes.
                Hell, even now, in globalized times: Try shipping wheat and rye from Ukraine to Africa without Russian cooperation.
                >They absolutely were
                Let's just agree that we disagree about the meaning of the word "regional", where I think it means "in the region" and you mean it means "anywhere".

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >You. Do. Not. Understand. Trade. Routes
                And you keep saying this but haven't actually explained anything. Tell me in no uncertain terms how the US enforced cooperation in a strategic embargo.

                >Let's just agree that we disagree about the meaning of the word "regional", where I think it means "in the region" and you mean it means "anywhere".
                You're a massive fricking moron. The capital and homelands of your nation doesn't have to be in a region to maintain interests there you absolute fricking mouthbreather.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >And you keep saying this but haven't actually explained anything.
                I actually have. In the only line of my posts that you omitted from your quote.
                >Tell me in no uncertain terms how the US enforced cooperation in a strategic embargo.
                Tell me in no uncertain terms how Russia enforces Africa's "cooperation" right now in a "strategic embargo" on Ukrainian goods that African nations actually want and desperately need.
                >to maintain interests there
                Kek. Okay then. Having interests makes one "regional" then. Good to know if I ever want to sell regional produce in, say, a Texan supermarket.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >actually have. In the only line of my posts that you omitted from your quote.
                Lol no, you're jsut trying to draw a vague connection between global trade in a modern conflict with trade in pre-war Asia, and hoping I'll do it for you.

                >Tell me in no uncertain terms how Russia enforces Africa's "cooperation" right now in a "strategic embargo" on Ukrainian goods that African nations actually want and desperately need.
                See above.

                >Having interests makes one "regional" then. Good to know if I ever want to sell regional produce in, say, a Texan supermarket
                If a large colonial empire with millions kf people doesn't qualify as an interest than I really don't know what else to tell you.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >you're jsut trying to draw a vague connection between global trade in a modern conflict with trade in pre-war Asia
                Holy shit, you really don't understand anything here. Trade in pre-war Asia (well, not within Asia, actually, but on a global scale) was not any easier a century ago than it is now. In fact, it was even more difficult in a less globalized world.
                You know what, it's moronic, but maybe this will help you understand: Have you seen Star Wars Episode 1? There wars a trade embargo on Naboo by a single side: The Trade Federation. Why didn't Naboo just look for a different trade partner? The film gives an answer: The Trade Federation has actual military presence on and around Naboo and controls the trade routes. Does that explain it to you? It's a fricking space adventure film for children. It's not that hard to get.
                >If a large colonial empire with millions kf people doesn't qualify as an interest than I really don't know what else to tell you.
                Oh, interest certainly. Just like I said: If having interest in a region makes you yourself "regional", I'm sure Texans (that I'm very interested in as customers) will appreciate the "regional" tomatoes that I grow Dutch greenhouses and ship with Norwegian cargo ships via New York.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I'm not asking you to keep flailing with shitty analogies. Did US trade relationships allow them to coerce oil embargo cooperation with other states? Is that the claim you're trying to make? Or do you think they coerced the Dutch and British into it with some sort of veiled military threat? The next post you write should be specifically about the nature of global markets in the 1930s. The real answer is that the US didn't unilaterally enforce an embargo, during a time where only a handful of powers exported oil. The Dutch and British rightfully recognized the growing theat to their colonial holdings just like the Americans did.

                >muh supermarkets
                Apples and oranges. I think you know this but will argue disingenuously and stick to your guns because you can't stand being wrong.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Did US trade relationships allow them to coerce oil embargo cooperation with other states?
                No, it didn't. That's the whole point about the US trade policy established in the Pacific in the 19th century was to control trade routes. The war also didn't help circumvening the established routes or negotiating new deals.
                Again: See the fricking Star Wars prequels. If George Lucas got anything right there, it's the politics. By the way: The Galactic Republic mirrors the Weimar Republic in its fall, and the Trade Federation's strategy in the whole war (ignoring the whole "Palpatine puppeteering both sides") is eerily similar to how the US acted in WW2. Just saying.
                >The next post you write should be specifically about the nature of global markets in the 1930s.
                About the nature of "global markets"? What global markets? We're talking about a time where there were barely any comprehensive mutual trade agreements even between two countries. International trade was usually a matter of smaller individual agreements and contracts. There was a stock exchange across borders, but regulation was lacking and actually trading stocks was slow. There was no "global economy" comparable to the one you are familiar with.
                >Apples and oranges.
                Yes, not only tomatoes, I'll offer my "regional" apples and oranges too!
                Seriously though: We're arguing about what the word "regional" means. Are you really going to uphold that having an interest somewhere makes you "regional" (a regional power or a regional anything) over there even if you're on the other side of the world?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Seriously though: We're arguing about
                what the word "regional" means
                Idiot. It's about what qualifies as a regional interest in terms of geopolitics.

                >No, it didn't. That's the whole point about the US trade policy established in the Pacific in the 19th century was to control trade routes.
                Yes most nations with interests abroad want to prevent piracy and create commercial security. The USN does thus still today all over the world.

                >Nice job proving that you do not understand pre-globalist trading and trade routes.
                Just explain what you meant by this. This was in response to me claiming the US can't unilaterally force cooperation in an embargo, and you seem to think the USN protecting maritime trade means something. If you use another Star Wars analogy I will fricking castrate you. Articulate your point clearly instead of fellating your intellect with unrelated shit about global stock markets.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >You cannot use continuous military threat and then claim to be non-agressive.
                You sound like a black woman with megaphone on some college campus. After all, violence against white people is always justified.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                What? I don't even get what you're trying to argue now. No one is talking about justifying violence against anyone. So leave your identity politics back on reddit or /misc/ or wherever you come from.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >No one is talking about justifying violence against anyone.
                That's straight up this thread's whole theme lmao

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >No one is talking about justifying violence against anyone.
                This whole thread is about a weeb justifying Pearl Harbor as a righteous response to Western influence so he can cry and wring his hands about how mean the nukes and firebombs were

                Yeah, you're terminally American. Pearl Harbor didn't happen in a vacuum. 9/11 didn't happen in a vacuum. Oh, and October 7th also didn't happen in a vacuum.
                You have caused everything that has ever happened to you. Directly. You are the agressor. That doesn't justify violence, but it explains it. And that a violent reaction isn't justified does not in turn mean that your own violence is.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >You have caused everything that has ever happened to you. Directly.
                >You are the agressor. That doesn't justify violence, but it explains it.

                Do you think Japan would've been bombed if they didn't start a war they couldn't win? Are you an aggressor when you use exploitative means to deny an imperial power important resources or are you an aggressor when you wage war against an entire hemisphere?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >if they didn't start a war they couldn't win?
                Japan didn't start any war with the US. That's the point.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Pearl Harbor didn't happen in a vacuum.
                If that was simply you're argument from the beginning, everyone would have been in agreement and we wouldn't have needed to bump the thread. Instead you claimed Japan didn't start the Pacific conflict (the obvious implication being they started the actual physical fighting) which is blatantly false. You didn't teach anybody in this thread anything they didn't already know nor did you present the history in a way that was new.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >If that was simply you're argument from the beginning, everyone would have been in agreement and we wouldn't have needed to bump the thread. Instead you claimed Japan didn't start the Pacific conflict
                Classic motte and bailey. And not even a good one.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >If that was simply you're argument from the beginning
                It was.
                >Instead you claimed Japan didn't start the Pacific conflict
                No. I claimed that Japan didn't drag America into said conflict. This is something you morons still cannot grasp: There can be (local) conflicts that America is not invovled in, and has no reason to be involved in.
                It was the US that took the active decision to involve themselves, Pearl Harbour happened as a reaction to that, and was actually a very meansured response.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >and has no reason to be involved in
                Everything you're admonishing the US for in defense of Pearl Harbor can be applied to Imperial Japan. They imposed themselves in the Chinese conflict as a third party for the sake of realpolitik. You have no consistent beliefs. You're like a woman, basically.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Everything you're admonishing the US for in defense of Pearl Harbor can be applied to Imperial Japan.
                So? I'm not saying that Japan is innocent and was dragged into the conflict like you are claiming for the US. Japan was active and agressive, I have never denied that, but so was the US from the very beginning. That is my point.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Japan was active and agressive, I have never denied that, but so was the US from the very beginning. That is my point.

                Because you're trying to remove any sort of culpability from Imperial Japan. You don't give a frick that you're being a hypocrite and crying about American politicking while softly conceding that Japan did the same. If you think an oil embargo and growing competing hegemony is grounds for a first strike then that's fine, but to compare overt military aggression directly to economic coercion is disingenuous at best. In your world Japs are merely a battered wife caught up in someone else's struggle for power.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >you're trying to remove any sort of culpability from Imperial Japan.
                No. I am not and I never was. My point was always about the US not being innocent.
                You really jumped to some conclusions about my posts here.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >US not being innocent.
                So what did the US do to japan anon? Embargo some oil because they weren't too fond of mass murder, invading foreign countries, and imperialism at the time?

                You still haven't said shit to prove whatever you're trying to prove. Just keep in mind this entire time Japan was have peace talks with the US while they secretly expanded their war efforts.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >My point was always about the US not being innocent.
                Your point is "the US started it" because you're equating overt military action with the exercise of soft power as

                >Just that they did not start any war with the US in particular.
                So let me get this straight. Prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor, there was no armed conflict between the US and Japan, just normal soft power tactics that literally all nations, Imperial Japan included, engaged in. Then Japan used their military to attack US citizens on US soil. After that, there was armed conflict between the US and Japan. So how exactly did Japan NOT start the war with the US?

                said. Such a moronic argument is only peddled by dumbfrick apologists like yourself. Nobody is saying the US is innocent or didn't frick around with internal Japanese politics or spheres of influence, but everything you accuse the US of as justification for military action existed in Japan at the exact same time as well.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Nobody is saying the US is innocent or didn't frick around with internal Japanese politics or spheres of influence
                There were literal posts in here that did, right at the beginning. See

                None of this is true, btw.

                . That's the first reply I got for listing historical facts that you now claim nobody denied.
                And it's basically from here where no only two completely mental US patriots attacked me, but also people who, like you say that I'm compltely right, but also, for some reason, accuse me of portraying Japan as completely innocent when I never did (and even outright named Japan as an agressor in the Pacific conflict).

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >like you say that I'm compltely right, but also, for some reason, accuse me of portraying Japan as completely innocent when I never did (and even outright named Japan as an agressor in the Pacific conflict).
                No I'm saying your an apologist and hypocrite and unconcerned with historical fact and honest debate, most likely because you have some kind of axe to grind with the US and revel in Imperial Japan's martyrdom.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >I'm saying your an apologist and hypocrite
                Which is funny, considering that I never claimed that Japan was innocent, only that the US wasn't either.
                So apparently not having double standards makes me a hypocrit, while you can go around acting as if the US never did any wrong and was never to blame for anything in WW2 and all is dandy. Funny how that works.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >ackshually Japan didn't start the war
                See

                Typically when people say someone "started" a war they mean which side escalated the conflict from being diplomatic to violent. On that basis, Japan absolutely did start the war. You add as much historical context as you want to the situation, that's just a simple fact.

                It's apologist behavior. You're a homosexual. Now frick off

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >ackshually Japan didn't start the war
                Did you even read the fricking post you replied to?
                Because it says the exact opposite.
                At this point I have to assume you're not just stupid, you're strawmanning with intent.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >only that the US wasn't either
                The US is innocent though. Their sanctions and embargos were to prevent Japan from invading even more countries like thailand. If you think embargos are a cause of war then you might be literally moronic.

                If Japan decided to not be dicks and invade everyone around them then there would be reason to punish them. You're acting like the allies should have let japan do whatever they wanted even when at the time they were known to be committing war crimes.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >The US is innocent though.
                Case in point. The US can do whatever it wants and insert itself into conflicts, even under military threat, and still is innocent in the minds of American idiots.
                But if you even dare to point out that such behaviour is effectively an aggression, you immediately get labeled an appologist for the opposing side. This is why no one can stand US Americans.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >This is why no one can stand US Americans.
                Must be why you voluntarily spend your time in our presence here.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >insert itself into conflicts
                trying to prevent war, not expand them. Or again, should Japan just be able to do whatever the frick it wants including crimes against humanity? American didn't want to trade with the empire of japan because they were fricking awful and tried to peacefully as they could end their hostilities by cutting off their resources.

                Japan could have just not continued it's expansion in the pacific but instead they chose war.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >trying to prevent war, not expand them.
                The US did not try to prevent a war back in WW2 (the conflict in question had been going on for a while anyway). The US has never really tried to prevent any war anywhere. But it loves involving itself in them and playing "world police". Most often that results in escalations. Which, I repeat, does not mean that the initial parties of the conflict are innocent. They usually aren't. But when the US involves itself, it cannot claim innocence anymore either. That's all there is to that point.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >The US did not try to prevent a war back in WW2
                What are embargos on Japan and constant peace talks. Japan and America were in peace talks DURING pearl harbor as part of the deception of the attack.

                The US even planned on giving Japan access to oil until intelligence discovered that Japan was bullshitting during the peace talks and were amassing troops for another foreign invasion.

                >The US has never really tried to prevent any war anywhere.
                The US didn't even want to join ww2. What the frick are you talking about.

                maybe you shouldn't discuss American history because you have no idea what the frick you are talking about.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >constant peace talks.
                Kek.
                >The US didn't even want to join ww2
                Yeah, that's what they teach you in American schools nowadays.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Kek.
                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hull_note

                They even cover the peace talks in the movie Pearl Harbor for frick's sake. It's incredibly well known that Japan was using diplomacy as a ruse for their war efforts.

                >Yeah, that's what they teach you in American schools nowadays.
                Because it's true you fricking moron.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah, keep it coming. The US never was an aggressor, was having "peace talks" before it ever (by your logic) was a party in the war, and never wanted its share of the WW2 spoils. Of course.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >The US never was an aggressor
                Again, they weren't. They put an embargo on Japan after they invaded yet another foreign country. A country ruled by an American ally.

                And again, read the wiki article you dense tard. It explains in detail the various peace talks the US and Japan were having. Even though japan was lying the entire fricking time.
                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hull_note

                How can you be this dense? The facts are right in front of you, all you have to do is fricking read them.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah, I get your point. US = totally innocent.
                They also never provoced any conflict in the middle east, did they, or supported dictators in south and central America?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Yeah, I get your point. US = totally innocent.
                As far as the conflict with Japan during WWII goes, yeah.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >As far as the conflict with Japan during WWII goes, yeah.
                See, that's American education for you.
                Maybe you'll try seeking out impartial sources one day. Maybe.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >willing to accept limited proposal and give up some oil in return
                >Japan lying about it the entire time and was planning on invading another country anyways.

                Right, america was the unreasonable ones.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >never provoced any conflict in the middle east
                Now you're getting even more moronic. Which conflicts would you be talking about exactly? The one where Iraq gassed Kuwait or the one where a terrorist organization crashed two planes into the two towers. Next you're going to tell me that the Taliban are the good guys.

                The ONLY thing you got on the middle east is Iraws WMDs and the vast majority of americans were against that one.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >it's Japan's god given right to murder civilians and invade foreign powers with absolutely no repercussions.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Yet another strawman. Of course.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Japanese military units occupied southern French Indochina, violating a gentlemen's agreement. Japanese bombers quickly moved into bases in Saigon and Cambodia, from which they could attack British Malaya. As a result, the US government imposed trade sanctions on Japan, including the freezing of Japanese assets in the United States; this effectively created an embargo of oil exports, as Japan did not have the necessary currency with which to buy American oil

                DIS IS BULLSHIT WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO BOMB WHOEVER WE PLEASE

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >No.

                So neither of these were you then?

                >if they didn't start a war they couldn't win?
                Japan didn't start any war with the US. That's the point.

                >Well maybe Japan shouldn't have started shit then.
                Fun fact: Japan didn't start shit.
                I know that's not what your teachers told you over there in Arkansas, but it was you who "started shit".

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Those were me. And you cannot read:
                >didn't start any war with the US
                Doesn't mean they didn't start anything with anyone ever. Just that they did not start any war with the US in particular. I maintain that point, and have never claimed that they did not, for example, start a conflict with China.
                But apparently you cannot tell that difference.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Just that they did not start any war with the US in particular.
                So let me get this straight. Prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor, there was no armed conflict between the US and Japan, just normal soft power tactics that literally all nations, Imperial Japan included, engaged in. Then Japan used their military to attack US citizens on US soil. After that, there was armed conflict between the US and Japan. So how exactly did Japan NOT start the war with the US?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >So how exactly did Japan NOT start the war with the US
                Trade routes or something

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                meanwhile, Japan was continuing peace talks with the US while planning for war all along. Things were looking good between the US and Japan before Pearl Harbor.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Things were looking good between the US and Japan before Pearl Harbor.
                Yeah, you launch one little sneak attack on someone and kill a few thousand of their citizens on their own soil and suddenly they treat you like you're some kind of butthole. Weird, right?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >just normal soft power tactics that literally all nations, Imperial Japan included, engaged in
                Wrong. It wasn't "soft power tactics", it was direct meddling in a conflict by unilaterally using economic power, ensured by military presence. And it wasn't just that one incident, it was constant economical pressure over decades that at that point boiled over.
                >Then Japan used their military to attack US citizens on US soil.
                To attack US soldiers (not civilians) in a military base, on Hawaii, which at the time was an outpost in the Pacific (let's not talk about how the US acquired that one), used for explicit military purposes, and only officially became a US state in 1959. Yes.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Wrong. It wasn't "soft power tactics
                It is 100% the excercise of soft power. Coercion isnt equal to direct military strikes against other military targets.

                >To attack US soldiers (not civilians) in a military base, on Hawaii,
                Citizen ≠ civilian, moron

                >let's not talk about how the US acquired that one
                Yeah the Japanese would never use military means to annex islands in the Pacific

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Citizen ≠ civilian, moron
                Yes. And you yourself should mind that difference.
                Soldiers that are enforcing military pressure on a region aren't the same as civilians. That doesn't mean that they should be attacked or deserve to be, but if they are attacked, that doesn't mean they were just a third party. Ironically, it's an issue that has come up again very recently for the US, down at the Iraq/Syria border. It's an issue that regularly comes up for the US, but not so often for other states. Gotta wonder why that is.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >using economic power, ensured by military presence
                how do you think embargos work anon. They are harsh measures meant to punish a nation. That's the fricking point. The US wasn't found of Japan's mass murdering of chinese civilians, war crimes, and invading all of it's neighbors so they decided to not support them anymore.

                You're ignoring what Japan was doing to earn those embargos.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >You're ignoring what Japan was doing to earn those embargos
                He's forgetting the skill issue too. If Japan had the means to embargo the West and US and cut off their steel and oil they absolutely would've done so. But since they couldn't, they elected for a surprise military strike.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                They could have also ceased hostilities and ended their imperialistic expansion. But instead they chose war. because Japan was just the fricking worst at the time.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >it was constant economical pressure over decades that at that point boiled over.
                Still doesn't justify a military incursion into someone else's territory and killing their citizens. It wasn't until that very point that it became a war.
                >To attack US soldiers (not civilians)
                First of all, I said "citizens" not "civilians". Second, as if that even matters. You use your military to kill someone's people on their land when they weren't doing the same to you, then you've started the war. You don't get to cry foul and say it was their fault after you get the war you asked for and lose.
                The US is not obligated to sell anyone strategic resources. Especially not a nation engaged in a war they don't support. Why the handwringing and apologetics? Why is it so hard to state the plain and simple fact that Japan started the war with the US? They started it and however the war played out, for better or for worse, is on them.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >nor did you present the history in a way that was new.
                Didn't stop one guy going full moron and screaming "none of that is true btw" as his first reaction to me listing historical facts.
                Face it: Your compatriots aren't the brightest candles in this room, and if they didn't learn anything from what I wrote, it's not because they already knew, it's because they refuse to accept it.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >No one is talking about justifying violence against anyone.
                This whole thread is about a weeb justifying Pearl Harbor as a righteous response to Western influence so he can cry and wring his hands about how mean the nukes and firebombs were

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                lmao I thought you were just a low IQ troll but you actually believe this and are no longer being coy but actually throwing your shit arguments out there.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                War
                >:(
                War, Japan
                🙂

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >What gives Americans the right to dictate to another country which conflicts (some of which predate American meddling in the region by centuries) it is allowed to have?

                Economic coercion is nothing new in the world of realpolitik. If you want to sit at a table with the superpowers you can't cry foul when they're just playing the game

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >What gives Americans the right to dictate to another country which conflicts (some of which predate American meddling in the region by centuries) it is allowed to have?
                What gives any country that right? You seem to believe that some kind of proximity legitimizes empire building. At what point are two nations far apart enough they are no longer "allowed" to "interfere" with each other?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >What gives any country that right?
                Nothing. That's the point. America didn't have that right, and no other country did. So what they did was itself an act of unlawful meddling, of aggression if you will. Inserting itself into a conflict. That's all there is to that point.
                Nowadays, we do have a semi-regular way of assessing conflicts from the outside, that's the Human Rights Court in Strasbourg and the International Court of Justice in The Hague. But neither of those is a country, and neither can effectively enforce any of its rulings.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Military power projection isn't inherently violent. And Pearl Harbor was a futile ape out, plain and simple. Also:

                Yup, I really see now how the Japanese had no other choice but to invade Manchuria and massacre the populace. They really forced their hand there. Dindu nuffin.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You know where the term "gunboat diplomacy" comes from?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Yup, I really see now how the Japanese had no other choice but to invade Manchuria and massacre the populace. They really forced their hand there. Dindu nuffin.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >to invade Manchuria
                Oh? Didn't know that was part of the US back then.

                Most gains in human life expectancy and world popuatlion are because of America and the West lmao.

                >Most gains in human life expectancy
                >because of America
                Then why do the United States have such a low life expectancy?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Oh? Didn't know that was part of the US back then.
                You're blaming Japanese imperialism on American involvement in the region. So again, how was invading Manchuria, Taiwan, and Korea a selfless display of pan-Asian resistance against the US?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >how was invading Manchuria, Taiwan, and Korea a selfless display of pan-Asian resistance against the US?
                No one ever claimed there was any "pan-Asian" resistance.
                But apparently, according to you, the US had every right to occupy all of Western Europe in the 19th century as well and force France to give up its economic autonomy. Afterall, France had ongoing conflicts with Spain, Britain, Germany, Austria-Hungary, the Netherlands and Belgium. There were lots of intra-european conflicts, and the continent was far away from having any kind of shared policy or representation.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >No one ever claimed there was any "pan-Asian" resistance
                You're claiming Japan was forced to engage in conquest to counteract American influence in the region. But let's just forget the name of their military cooperation pact.

                >But apparently, according to you, the US had every right to occupy all of Western Europe in the 19th century as well and force France to give up its economic autonomy.

                Creating an economic sphere of influence while handing out economic aid seems like a world of difference from prolonged brutal military occupation. Nobody is making the claim that the US isn't guilty of imperialism, they're just making the claim that Japan threw the first punch and waged total war, and then cried and shit their pants when total war arrived on their doorstep. Sore loser behavior.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >You're claiming Japan was forced to engage in conquest to counteract American influence in the region.
                No. Are you actually too stupid to read or just strawmanning hard?
                >while handing out economic aid
                Kek. What "economic aid" is that?
                >waged total war
                PLEASE look up what "total war" means. It's not something you wage on others, it concerns war economy in your own country and society. Basically, it describes the complete restructuring of a country's means of production for the sake of war, and nothing but the sake of war.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Kek. What "economic aid" is that?
                Google "Marshall Plan". I'm assuming you meant 20th century as I can't recall any widespread American influence in 19th century Europe.
                >PLEASE look up what "total war" means. It's not something you wage on others, it concerns war economy in your own country and society
                You ABSOLUTELY can escalate a war into total war from small, low-grade conflicts you fricking mongoloid.
                >Basically, it describes the complete restructuring of a country's means of production for the sake of war, and nothing but the sake of war
                Wrong again, moron.
                https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_war

                Do you ever grow tired of being wrong?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Google "Marshall Plan"
                Not related to any Asian countries, or to any point before 1945.
                >I can't recall any widespread American influence in 19th century Europe.
                You know that we're still discussing the American economic interest in the Pacific, Japan, China and some smaller countries in the region, right? That I only brought up Europe to illustrate how demented it is to think that jsut because some countries are at war with one another, a third party can come in an try to subdue them.
                >You ABSOLUTELY can escalate a war into total war from small, low-grade conflicts
                Not what "total war" means. I think I'm arguing with completely illiterate toddlers here. I literally gave you the definition and you still act as if "total war" means something along the lines of escalating war. And your own link agrees with me:
                >includes any and all civilian-associated resources and infrastructure as legitimate military targets, mobilises all of the resources of society to fight the war, and gives priority to warfare over non-combatant needs.
                I.e.: the complete restructuring of a country's means of production for the sake of war, and nothing but the sake of war.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Not related to any Asian countries, or to any point before 1945.
                You were speaking on American involvement in Europe. Try to keep up.

                >That I only brought up Europe to illustrate how demented it is to think that jsut because some countries are at war with one another, a third party can come in an try to subdue them.
                Lmao that's how states have operated for millenia. But everyone cries when it doesn't work out for them. That's literally what Japan did while China was fighting a civil war lol

                >I literally gave you the definition and you still act as if "total war" means something along the lines of escalating war. And your own link agrees with me:
                And you're wrong, dumbfrick. You're not right just because you think you are.

                >And your own link agrees with me
                Now read about the OTHER facets of total war, dipshit. If you think Imperial Japan didn't possess a war economy then you're propogandized beyond saving.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >You were speaking on American involvement in Europe.
                See literally the next line of what I wrote: I brought up a hypothetical scenario in 19th century Europe to showcase how aggressive American influence in the Pacific at the same time actually was. Because you wouldn't defend it HAD the US treated France like they actually DID treat Japan.
                >But everyone cries when it doesn't work out for them.
                No. The US cries when people strike back against them. That's the only difference. Japan didn't "cry" when the US forced them to open their borders to a trade relationship that unduely benefitted only one side. They just made the best of it. Only when the US kept pushing them did they retaliate, in a very limited fashion. It was the US that then played the victim, and does to this day.
                >And you're wrong
                Too bad that you cannot provide any sources that disagree with me, but your own sources disagree with you.
                >Now read about the OTHER facets of total war
                I did. Both I and the article you linked gave a short definition first and foremost. Both of those were in agreement. Nothing in that article disagrees with my definition, and nothing even just implies yours (which is already a very vague one).
                >If you think Imperial Japan didn't possess a war economy
                It did. But that doesn't change the fact that "total war" is not something you wage on others, as you expressed it, or minor conflicts excalating and growing into larger ones, it's a description of a country's interal structure.
                Japan might as well have been in total war mode (I'd say it was) - but that doesn't mean it forced Korea or China into total war. Korea, in particular, was always more of a victim of both Japan and China anyway, rather than an active war party. So saying that they ever were in a state of "total war" is laughable.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >No. The US cries when people strike back against them
                The US didn't "strike" Japan prior to this, and the Meiji Reformation would've been impossible without international exchange of goods and ideas. So really you should be thanking us.

                >in a very limited fashion
                Lol

                >It did
                Then you can take back what you said about Japan not engaging in it you fricking disingenuous cretin

                >it's a description of a country's interal structure.
                You're trying desperately to reduce it to that because you know you're wrong, which is why I had to provide a single source for you. Find me one (1) source that claims total war in singularly about a countries economic organization and I'll concede.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >the Meiji Reformation would've been impossible without international exchange of goods and ideas.
                The Meiji Reformation wasn't anything Japan wanted back then, so presenting it as a good thing in retrospect isn't really doing it justice.
                Yes, Japan did ultimately profit from it, but they never were given the change to do so on their own terms. We don't know when they would have opened their borders if left alone back then, nor how well they'd have done, whom they'd have tried to trade with, which conflicts would have gotten reignited (although I'd argue that the China one was ultimately unavoidable due to the historical rivalry). So that's pure speculation.
                >what you said about Japan not engaging in it
                I never said that it didn't engage in the conflict. Not sure where you think I did when I repeatedly spoke about Japan and China being at war.
                >You're trying desperately to reduce it to that
                I'm "desperately" trying to use words describing an academic concept in a way that is consistent with said academic concept.
                You're "desperately" trying to use them in a way that has nothing to do with any of that, like escalations of a conflict's scale on the outside.
                Factually, we even agree on what happened. I just wish you wouldn't insist on calling those facts by the wrong name and then pretend that we disagree on the facts (which, again, we do not) just because I correct you on your misnaming.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Factually, we even agree on what happened. I just wish you wouldn't insist on calling those facts by the wrong name and then pretend that we disagree on the facts (which, again, we do not) just because I correct you on your misnaming.

                You didn't correct anybody, which is why you can't back it up with anything despite fancying yourself as some sort of academic. Like I said before, if you're going to wage total war, don't cry when it shows up to your house too.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >You didn't correct anybody
                Then what do you think I did when I gave you a (correct) definition of the terminus technicus that you had used (incorrectly)?
                >if you're going to wage total war
                See, that is your problem. You keep using it the wrong way. You simply cannot let go of your misconceptions even after we've already been over the formal definition, have both provided formal defiitions that agree to a high degree, and have also found out that we agree on the facts regardless of said terminus technicus. And yet you insist on using it incorrectly.
                Well, so be it then. Keep using it wrong. Since we don't actually disagree about anything but nomenclature, there's nothing left to discuss about this point.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You're declaring an imagined victory. Again, post a single source (anything vaguely academic) that describes total war singularly as a form of wartime economic organization and I'll gladly concede.

                https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-hccc-worldhistory2/chapter/total-war/#:~:text=The%20American%2DEnglish%20Dictionary%20defines,a%20separate%20class%20of%20warfare.

                I can go all day.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >post a single source (anything vaguely academic) that describes total war singularly as a form of wartime economic organization
                You literally gave a linkl to a wikipedia article that did. You even admitted that it agreed with the definition I had given. And now you link another website that agrees with me:
                >directing almost all aspects of life including industry, finance, labor, and food production toward military purposes.
                See, same definition right there.
                >I can go all day.
                Please do. But, please, also point out where exactly all of your sources agree with my definition, so that I don't have to do it every single time.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Explain to me what you think "singularly" means. And then reread that Wikipedia articles and note if there's more than one characteristic. Or better yet, post your own source that backs up your assertion, since you've been unable to do so thus far.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Oh, and:
                >You're blaming Japanese imperialism on American involvement in the region.
                No, you fricking moron, I'm not. And I never was.
                I'm blaming America getting involved in WW2 on Americans involving themselves in conflicts in the region. No one forced you to try to play both Japan and China, and no one even forced you to take sides when Manchuria was ultimately occupied (which wasn't really a new conflict, by the way, but just the continuation of a claim that Japan had held from the sino-japanese war at the beginning of the century, a war that the US hadn't cared about all that much).

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >I'm blaming America getting involved in WW2 on Americans involving themselves in conflicts in the region
                Again, you're claiming that Pearl Harbor was a just reaction to American meddling in the region, when you can extend that same logic to the consequences Japan faced from centuries of the very same thing.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                > The US basically gained control over all of East Asia economically
                l'mao

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You still haven't said anything. Just some trite platitudes about how history doesn't occur in a vacuum. Grow some balls and just say you think America deserved it for the Perry expedition and encroaching in East Asia

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Americans literally don't understand why the whole middle east is a powder keg
                Americans don't care and would rather not be there. The American government maintains their activities there to make certain people rich and that's always been the objective and they have always been successful. They aren't ignorant of shit and that's why its the most evil government entity in the world.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >when the USA coerced Japan into opening itself up to the world in the mid 1940s
                Kek.
                Also, good job looking that up that one bulletpoint on Wikipedia. Too bad you don't see it in the context of everything that happened in the mid-19th century in the whole pacific region due to US influence, and ignore how Japan was treated by the US in the late 19th century.
                Go on, you've already started educating yourself. Now go the whole way.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >have enormous Asian inferiority complex due to the white pigs mogging you with their empires
                >hey we can do that too!
                >get held down and ass fricked by America
                >actually you started it by making us jealous!

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                That's not what happened, or why anything happened. Why don't you read up on it before you post such nonsense?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Japanese have always been a violent rape culture. Even before the USA existed they were butchering millions.
                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_invasions_of_Korea_(1592%E2%80%931598)

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Well, I'm not American and I don't know what you are alluding to either. I'm all ears.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                right and america is starting ww3 by issuing embargos and sanctions against russia.

                You're a fricking idiot.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >america is starting ww3 by issuing embargos and sanctions against russia.
                No. Because America cannot enforce embargos and sanctions against Russia the same way it could against Japan. The US has very little influence in that region. If anyone risks escalating the conflict with Ukraine, it's the EU, and that's the reason why the EU is far more careful about what sanctions it enforces. But, frankly, even there the chance of an escalation is slim, due to Russia having multi-lateral trade relationships.
                If Russian economy was completely dominated by one single outside party, then we'd have reasons to be concerned about an Russian attack. And whether that attack then escalated further, well, that would depend on the third party.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >The US has very little influence in that region.
                What is NATO

                Frick off homosexual.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >What is NATO
                Kek. Not what you think it is.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >a group of nations with enough power to stop russia from invading all of it's neighbors

                Sounds like a pretty strong influence in the area to me. Poland is just daring russia to start shit. More than 30 countries have sanctions against russia right now.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >with enough power to stop russia from invading all of it's neighbors
                Funny then how Russia did invade its neighbour and NATO didn't do anything about it. Almost as if NATO isn't actually meant to defend non-members.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Which NATO country was that?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                literally all of them.

                You realize what and how NATO works right? We aren't talking about the UN.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Too dumb to read, anon?
                No one is talking about NATO countries. This is a conflict between two non-NATO-countries. Hence why NATO effectively does not care. Putin knew that. Zelensky knew as well, which is why he panicked and wanted nothing more than to join NATO.
                That's why you bringing up NATO as a potential influence on the region (eastern Europe) was ridiculous to begin with. NATO doesn't involve itself into Russia attacking its neighbours as long as those aren't themselves part of NATO.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >NATO doesn't involve itself into Russia attacking its neighbours
                except for the embargos and sanctions they put in place. And NATO as a whole has the influence to enforce action on russia if they decide to get more aggressive.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >except for the embargos and sanctions they put in place.
                NATO did not put any embargo or sanction in place. You seem to be confusing NATO for individual countries which might or might not be part of NATO. Or maybe you're confusing it with the EU, which did put some sanctions in place? Or maybe you're confusing it with the UN, which tried to officially condemn the attack (didn't happen due to Russia's veto) but couldn't sanction anyone even if it wanted.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Bro, don't bother. This moron is just yet another brownoid who doesn't have a single consistent belief beyond "West bad"
                I mean, look at the absolute state of this thread:
                >Japan can do whatever it wants to other countries up to and including mass murder and imperialism and that's just fine
                >Western countries can't exert any influence whatsoever on other countries for any reason, even to stop the aforementioned imperialism and mass murder, or they're uniquely evil and deserved to be punished for it.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You know that the guy you accuse of arguing that "Japan can do whatever it wants to other countries" (which I never did) is me, whom you're responing to now, right?
                And that the "NATO can influence Russia with sanctions" guy has been arguing against me the whole time and actually one of your fellow Americans on your side of this moronic argument (so, yes, probably a "brownoid")?
                You seem to have lost the orientation about which side made which argument between all your strawmen in here.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >the guy you accuse of arguing that "Japan can do whatever it wants to other countries" (which I never did)
                You did though. This whole thread has been
                >Japan started the war by attacking Pearl Harbor
                >Nuh uh, what about muh historical context!? NO NOT THAT HISTORICAL CONTEXT! AMERICA BAD!

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >You did though.
                Still strawmanning, still not able to actually point out any post where I supposedly did. Instead you're using allcaps and ridiculous overstatements of things no one ever said in greentext.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I refer you to these two posts:

                Yeah, keep it coming. The US never was an aggressor, was having "peace talks" before it ever (by your logic) was a party in the war, and never wanted its share of the WW2 spoils. Of course.

                >The US never was an aggressor
                Again, they weren't. They put an embargo on Japan after they invaded yet another foreign country. A country ruled by an American ally.

                And again, read the wiki article you dense tard. It explains in detail the various peace talks the US and Japan were having. Even though japan was lying the entire fricking time.
                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hull_note

                How can you be this dense? The facts are right in front of you, all you have to do is fricking read them.

                And I still say you're a seething brownoid with no consistent beliefs beyond "West bad"

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Why the frick are you quoting me you moron. I'm the one posting the peace talks in support of America, not Japan.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Japan attacked america because we’re ancestral enemies
                Just say what america did that makes you think we started the fight with Japan

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              No matter how much trade and support we were doing for their enemies, they attacked a navy base hoping to completely wipe out our naval power in the west, and they failed, and that surviving navy came and destroyed them. So what. They knew what was going to happen right when they failed

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      They should have hit Berlin with the Red Army inside of it.
      Then lauched Operation Unthinkable.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      anon most people dont even know that the bombs killed 99% civilians, children, women and old people

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Imagine seething that the Oppenheimer movie is about Oppenheimer.

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I can’t believe a vastly successful government scientist had to attend a hearing where maybe he would lose his clearance to create nuclear government superweapons in the later parts of his life. The way he maybe would have had to retire rich or work in another very similar field, rather than retain access to nuclear government superweapons for his entire life, no one should have to suffer that.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The hearing fricked him out of getting a Nobel prize much later after everything had chilled out, that's really the only significance of the hearing in the long term.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Oh no! The guy who built the nuclear bomb didn’t win a Nobel peace prize?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Nuclear deterrence worked so yeah I'd say he deserved it.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It worked like shit. We still have wars it's just that the countries with nukes can do whatever the frick they want. Without nukes you atleast had a chance to fight back.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Wow he should win a prize for everyone else choosing not to use his weapon due to how evil and world destroying it is!

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            And what does this deterrence... deter, exactly?

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Well there hasn't been a war anywhere near the scale of the last world war since the invention of the nuclear bomb, and no more nuclear bombs have been used since the ones dropped on Japan, so it looks like deterrence works pretty well all things considered.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Huh, that’s actually a good point

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                How have you gotten this far in life without ever hearing that point being made before?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Dunno man, thinking about geopolitics isn’t exactly what puts bread on my table nor my interest

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous
    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >firebombing Tokio and other cities? No problem!
      >Using a single bomb to achieve the same outcome? NOO YOU CAN'T DO THAT MUH WOMEN AND CHILDREN!
      Truman warned them before Hiroshima. They didn't listen. Then he warned them before Nagasaki. They again didn't listen.
      The blood of the people of Nagasaki is entirely on the hands of the japanese elite

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        God Americans are disgusting, total brainwash.

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >*two cities remotely explode into nuclear hellfire on the command of a dominant military force from across the globe, killing hundreds of thousands*
    >*giant menacing face appears on screen, slowly zooming in to extreme close up*
    >it’s really something, the power we hold. In fact I was thinking that I am as powerful as Death, yes in fact I feel quite like the God of Death himself, or whatever Pygmy Death God you worship over there. Like time I will destroy all things, yes I feel as though I am Death, I could destroy this world, I could have destroyed it already
    What a humanitarian

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      What is he supposed to say? At least he knew what he did was pure evil

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        He shouldn’t have said anything, he should have listened, and that’s what no one did

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I always thought he sounds like XRE humble bragging
      >such a terrible catastrophe, what intellect could conceive of such divine power! I feel like death, destroyer of worlds (*zooms on his face as he looks to the side with internal monologue* heh that sounded pretty cool I guess *sniff sniff*). anyway *stretches* gotta ramble, gotta weep upon the ashes of thousands of asiatics I obliterated in a split second.

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Oppenheimer
    this was one of the worst movies i have ever seen.
    Holy shit what a waste of time, Nolan is a total fricking hack.

    Anybody who rates this schlock higher than 1/10 should get their brains checked.

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Truman was a coward who pretended he didn't care just for fear of being morally condemned.

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's really strange that Cinemaphileanon is trying so hard to justify an event that those involved in the incident regret.

  14. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >will you guys quit investigating me for communism? I’m trying to wallow in regret for not joining the party to stay with my communist girlfriend, I remember it was right after the her local chapter leader, my good friend, came to me for nuclear secrets to leak to the USSR

  15. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I can never decide if it's pathetic and cucked or admirable and respectable how Japan is now an ally of the nation that nuked them

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      it's pathetic and cucked but the manner in which Japan has comported itself under such sad conditions is admirable and respectable.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        They've certainly made the best of the situation and it's not like I want them to be our enemy. It just feels like, they should have a little resentment, you know? We kind of fricked their wives and they're inviting us over for dinner still. But I mean, the food is good?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >It just feels like, they should have a little resentment, you know?
          they do. it's dripping from their media. like, Godzilla and Akira and Ghost in the Shell are pregnant with American resentment. Ever see the commodore Perry episode of Samurai Champloo, where they play the Americans in the first game of baseball in Japan? they just also have a certain admiration for our culture and history as well (speaking of baseball), which also comes through in their media.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            That's true, but the important thing is booba. big booba. nice boobas

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The thing is, Americans are notoriously bad at recognizing when something is resentful or even just critical of their beloved nation.
            Pretty much all of them think that Rammstein's Amerika is applauding American "culture". They even think Springsteen's Born in the USA was an unironic celebration of their country, and that one's in English.
            It's the lack of general education and the outright anti-enlightenment sentiment, while being indoctrinated with political proganda from early on, that makes the average US citizen immune to critical thought.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >indoctrinated with political proganda from early on
              This, every country has that "we number one, we never did anything wrong" bullshit to some degree but Americans actually believe and worship it like a cult.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >we never did anything wrong"
                Americans don't believe that. It's worse. They don't care.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >They even think Springsteen's Born in the USA was an unironic celebration of their country, and that one's in English.

              I don’t think that’s true at all. People like Born in the U.S.A. and Springsteen in general because it feels quintessentially American. Being “born down in a dead man’s town,” “living in the shadow of the penitentiary.” In Born to Run, “baby this town rips the bones from your back; it’s a death trap, it’s a suicide rap; we’ve gotta get out while we’re young.” The song Glory Days is about people whose glory days are over.

              It’s a view of life best summed up by the song Thunder Road. Our lives aren’t great, we aren’t great, this town is for losers, but we can just hit the road, ride out to the promised land, that highway will take us anywhere, we can find what we want, or we can ride the rest of our lives. That’s the experience a lot of people have living in America. Disappointments, dead ends, but there is something magic and quintessentially American about hitting the road to try and find something better. I mean, you can wake up in Texas, drive all day on the interstate, until you go to sleep at night, still in Texas. There’s a whole giant country out there, you can get in the car, drive 2,500 miles and start over again. You listen to Born in the U.S.A. so No Surrender hits harder. “A wide open country in my eyes, and these romantic dreams in my head.”

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Did you take that verbatim from a Rolling Stone article or something?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I thought of the words and typed them. It’s actually not difficult to do if you know what you’re talking about.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Well, you should write for Rolling Stone then.
                You missed the point as succinctly as only their people can while imbuing historical facts with heavyhanded interpretation.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >They even think Springsteen's Born in the USA was an unironic celebration of their country, and that one's in English.

                I don’t think that’s true at all. People like Born in the U.S.A. and Springsteen in general because it feels quintessentially American. Being “born down in a dead man’s town,” “living in the shadow of the penitentiary.” In Born to Run, “baby this town rips the bones from your back; it’s a death trap, it’s a suicide rap; we’ve gotta get out while we’re young.” The song Glory Days is about people whose glory days are over.

                It’s a view of life best summed up by the song Thunder Road. Our lives aren’t great, we aren’t great, this town is for losers, but we can just hit the road, ride out to the promised land, that highway will take us anywhere, we can find what we want, or we can ride the rest of our lives. That’s the experience a lot of people have living in America. Disappointments, dead ends, but there is something magic and quintessentially American about hitting the road to try and find something better. I mean, you can wake up in Texas, drive all day on the interstate, until you go to sleep at night, still in Texas. There’s a whole giant country out there, you can get in the car, drive 2,500 miles and start over again. You listen to Born in the U.S.A. so No Surrender hits harder. “A wide open country in my eyes, and these romantic dreams in my head.”

                And he’s right, too.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                He's right about a lot there, but he doesn't really argue what Americans, on average, think it is about.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              No one hates america as much as americans do.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >No one hates NORTH america as much as CENTRAL americans do.
                Ftfy.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >Americans are notoriously bad at recognizing when something is resentful or even just critical of their beloved nation.
              More like bad at giving a shit about it. The rest of the world cries and seethes about us so often that it just becomes meaningless background noise.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >The thing is, Americans are notoriously bad at recognizing when something is resentful or even just critical of their beloved nation
              The veil has been lifted a long time ago. now you have americans who are apologizing for being american and kissing Blacks feet.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              It's intersting that this mentality exists. We've spent decades where "ex"-communist Howard Zinn's trash "A people's History of the United States" has been the #1 history text book in both high schools and colleges in the United States. Yet people claim our education system is still too self-aggrandizing, patriotic, and unreflective, People in the West, especially the English-language nations, are probably the most self-reflective people on Earth.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              it's just an IQ issue, most states in america have really terrible IQ averages

  16. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous
  17. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    What do you expect of someone who turned his back on the nazis because he thought they were too soft and targeted the wrong people?

  18. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    https://vocaroo.com/1bc3ilcdRvuQ

  19. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >call the japs and tell them that a bomb will be detonated in the ocean, send them coordinates
    >tell them that if they dont surrender, they will drop a few of them on their cities
    >japs see the bomb
    >japs surrender
    can anyone tell me why this wouldn't work? it's not like japs had capabilites to defend themselves from that shit, americans have been bombing them for some time undisturbed

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It had to be a pillar of nuclear hellfire with a death count, or else we wouldn’t have proven to the world our willingness to use it

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >willingness to use it
        Yeah, the one thing Americans needed was to prove to the world that Hitler wasn't actually the big villain of WW2, no matter the demonization, neither was Stalin, and they couldn't just let Churchill have that title either, no matter how hard he had worked to build up that reputation for years. They needed to take some drastic measures to prove once and for all that Truman and their whole military industrial complex were the true unadultered evil incarnate.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          But you know the story, the context of the end of World War II as well as an allied victory, allowed the US to appear moral within its own sphere of influence. This story of mercy against the Japanese does wonder to launder the reality of a dominant superpower holding the world at gunpoint under threat of complete global destruction

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Dropping atomic bombs on Japan isn't even in the top five most horrific occurrences of World War Two.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              So, what do you think is?
              Firobombing cities (Toyko, Dresden) might be up there, as long-term campaigns, but not as singular event calamities.
              As for long term effects, Germany and Japan quickly recovered, both from what the nazis/imperialists did to their own countries and from foreign strikes, but since the US and Britain "won", they never got a chance to start fresh and their warmongers fricked their countries (and people) up for good.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Dresden
                Less than 30,000 people died in Dresden, bro.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Hence the "not as singular event calamities".
                The evil of firebombing campaigns wasn't the number of victims or the propery damage it did, it was the cruelty of the method and the intentional terror and suffering it caused for those who had to endure them. (I am not arguing that the nuclear strikes were any better in this regard, but I have seen people argue that those at least were quick to kill in most cases ... if we ignore radiation damages).

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >cruelty of the method and the intentional terror and suffering it caused
                Like dying any other way? If someone dropped a bomb on my house and I died over the course of three hours I wouldn't be thinking "This is more humane".

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Like I said, I'm not arguing that the nukes were more humane (in the direct impact zones) for being quick killers. Just that I've seen people argue that.
                In my personal estimation, the nukes were significantly worse than even the most suppressive longest-lasting firebombing/carpetbombing.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >Dropping atomic bombs on Japan isn't even in the top five most horrific occurrences of World War Two.
              These are the most insane words i've read on this site

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You must be new here, then.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          USA also gave inmunity to the doctors who commited worse atrocities than the nazis in Unit 731, they went on to die peacefully while innocent japanese burned

  20. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    What, would you say, is the movie actually about

  21. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    israelites, ladies and gentlemen.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The real Oppenheimer was only mad because he couldn't kill Germans with it. After the bomb successfully detonated, he toasted with his fellow israeli communists how they would use it to exterminate Germans. Then based Truman used it on the japs instead and sent that weepy cretin packing

      >Dude, the bomb is good because it ended the war quickly and that saved many lives

      This excuse is embarrassing. The bad guys won

      [...]

      Why did he hate trans folk so much?

      >muttgroid posting mutt propaganda
      Enjoy shlomos cum inside your neo vegana, I guess

      Enjoy bum towns in the middle of your bootifeel first world cities while coping with it using internet muttgroid memes you "queen"

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I hate lies and anti science and I hate psychopathic liars too. USA is Israel's sidekick.
        Both is dogshit. Both spreading mental illness worldwide like nothing else. Even street oiling pajeets are less dangerous to the world.

  22. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >OH NO I never thought that this huge bomb that I just spent millions of dollars of government's money for would ever actually be used. I mean it is a huge fricking bomb, how could people ever think to use a bomb to kill humans? Anyway, heres a passage from an Indian book... yes, Indian, you probably don't know it, but I have read it because I am smart. It illustrates how I feel now, as I have become like a God that kills people, like death itself. I am so very regretful of this thing that I spent years doing, now I only understand it, now that I have become like a god

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >an Indian book... yes, Indian
      It makes sense, since Indians were the first people that American settlers had systematically killed.
      Like Pottery, it rhymes.

  23. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    being israeli and being solipsistic is the same thing

  24. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    hes israeli. goyim arent people and should die for israelites. he isnt upset and doesnt care. also, he didnt even do anything. just assigned position, took all credit, contributed nothing. now has a movie to white wash history to make sure morons that cant read understand a israelite did it all.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      They think our brat is stupid

  25. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Fricking lmao, not even a mutt but nips should be on their knees thanking the US for the absolute mercy they showed them. Japan literally became one of the richest countries in world for half a century thanks to the US making them their ally. The alternative would have been splitting up the country Germany style and have half the country be made up for slav-nip mutt mixes birthed by slavic rape gangs.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Japan literally became one of the richest countries in world
      >The alternative would have been splitting up the country Germany style
      Because Germany wasn't right up there on all those richest economies lists with Japan, right?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Germany was split in two with one half being a poor satellite state of the Soviet Union for half a century and wasn't unified until the fricking 90's with the effect and economy between western and eastern Germany still being massive.

        Are you fricking moronic?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Who cares about the GDR, which doesn't exist anymore and whose territory and people are now better off than most of Europe anyway, when we're talking about economic powerhouses, where Germany dominated and still dominates per-capita?
          Let's say, hypothetically, Japan had gotten divided and one of their more agriculturally dominated areas, say Hokkaido, had been given to the soviets up until 1990 - do you think it had done significantly worse? Why?
          Or, conversely, had Germany not been split, how much better do you think it (as a whole) could possibly have done?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Not that anon, and this is just speculation, but to me the difference is that I doubt Russia would have handed back over their half of Japan after the fall. Much more controllable then their piece of Germany.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >I doubt Russia would have handed back over their half of Japan after the fall
              They ran out of money/resources, Gorbachev was desperately trying to hold the core of the USSR together, completely ignoring the outskirts collapsing and falling away, and in the end Russia had to let go of everything. Even Belarus, which basically is just another part of Russia and to this day loyal to Moscow. There's no way they could have held any part of any divided country past 1990 (I also don't get why you think a remote island state would have been easier to control). The best they could have hoped for was what happened with Korea, where the installed communist government would crack down and resist reunification. But Japan was always more like Germany than like Korea.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                They managed to keep the disputed southern territories of the Kuril Islands (obviously not the same as an entire half of Japan but still) and it not as if Japan was in any position to take back territory if the Russia figured nobody would say they couldn't keep it. They left everywhere they knew there would be significant opposition.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >not as if Japan was in any position to take back territory if the Russia figured nobody would say they couldn't keep it
                Neither was Germany. Granted, Germany had the support of the EEC (which it was part of and which later became the EU), and of the US (which wanted the cold war to be done with at that point). Japan had no such support in the 20th century. But had Japan been divided and become a frontier of the cold war in Asia, the US at the very least would have supported a reunification (under capitalism/democracy).

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Idk maybe you're right but who know. I suppose Japan isn't exactly resource-rich so it probably wouldn't have been worth it especially compared to other territories they let go off. Makes me want to research why they want to keep the Kurils.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Who cares about the GDR
            Are you some butthurt krautBlack person or something? My entire point was that Japan being split for half a century like Germany would have been far worse than what we they got. You can't just ignore half a century you absolute moron.

  26. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >kill innocent people
    >oy vey! the fact that I am the one committing a Shoah is totally triggering me!!!
    >*cry*

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      pic related

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      pic related

      That movie was in no way glorifying killing civilians.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        That's not what I implied you low IQ mongrel

  27. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    > The bombings of Hirishima and Nagasaki are never shown.

    > We get a sex scene instead. Apparently that's more important.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >say the line while I ride you, Oppy 🙂
      Gayest scene imaginable

  28. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Im
    An American who literally believes america deserved 9/11, so just make your case and I’ll probably believe we deserved Pearl Harbor too

  29. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Holocaust is the single most evilest thing in the world, but nuking hundreds of thousands of civilians in Japan is good

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Realistically more japs died from those nukes than any israelite was even threatened by any German ever

  30. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Ayo! Check this out... 15kt

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      AYO! Also check this out... 20kt

      The damage was relatively little.

  31. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why did the japanese not have a spy and why did they not try to build an atomic bomb and why did they not know such bombs exist?

  32. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >japs
    >innocent

  33. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Hundreds of thousands of civilians died in subsequent non-nuclear, conventional wars, but nobody cares about that.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I was never able to understand this. Far more Axis civilians got killed in conventional bombing campaigns but outside of Dresden no one cares. I honestly think its a purely aesthetic low IQ thing.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      people care because if there was a nuclear war the deaths would be in the billions and the planet would be rendered uninhabitable. Some Koreans, Vietnamese, and Afghan proxy wars is just seen as a much better alternative.

  34. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    funny how the ones crying america bad for the nukes aren't even the japs, it's just sandBlack folk.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Seems more like simple weebs, to be honest.

  35. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >America gets a conscience: the movie
    >America still does not have a conscience

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      cry more paletard

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >America gets a conscience: the movie
      Oppenheimer wasn't American though. Neither the historical Oppenheimer, nor the fictional one.
      In fact, weren't basically all the Americans in Oppenheimer portrayed as either irredeemingly evil or psychopaths or both?

  36. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Chubby piggy killed herself
    More like

  37. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    there are gays on this board right now that think bombing military cities and saving millions of lives on both sides was morally wrong.

    It's a good thing the greatest generation had balls.

  38. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >hates that the bomb was dropped, hated that bigger bombs were being developed, constantly spoke against development of bombs and said other countries don't pose a threat because you can make fissile material with soap (or whatever example he used)
    >gets clearance suspended
    >NOOOOOOOOOOO WHHYYYYY YOU CAN'T SUSPEND MY CLEARANCE AAAAAAH

  39. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Oppenheimer was mostly chosen to lead the project because he was independently wealthy through inheritance, and they figured this would make it harder to bribe/coerce him.
    They had more or less already figured out how to build the thing before he got involved.

    In hindsight it's kind of bizarre that he was chosen because he was a borderline schizonut case barely holding it together for most of his life.

  40. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's hilarious when non-Americans try to act like they know everything about America and Americans aside from what the internet tells them. The same shit they bash Americans for regarding their shithole countries.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I don't even like coming to any sort of defense of the 20th century American government. I simply don't like it when people try to paint other countries as admirable underdogs when they are guilty of being just as shitty, except not competent enough to get away with it.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >just as shitty
        America is evangelical compared to Japan and Nazi germany. Forced labor, crimes against humanity, multiple genocide, human experimentation, rape and murder in mass. Korea is still fricked from what Japan did to them.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          America itself did this = genocide of native americans, forced labour from the transatlantic slave trade, human experimentation via the covid vaccine killing people, rape + murder war crimes during the invasion of the Phillipines where American soldiers routinely killed children. The only difference is America wins so its all ok.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >America itself did this = genocide of native americans,
            because that has bearings on ww2. The 20th centure saw all world powers backing off from colonialism and actively restoring the damage they did.

            meanwhile Japan and Germany decided to become empires and invaded all their neighbors.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Nip defender is a flip
            Now it's starting to make sense...

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >buy a bunch of land from natives and give them the Bible and the wheel
            >buy slaves from slave owners in Africa and eventually end slavery
            >save the Philipines from Spain (and then again from Japan)
            >invent multiple cures for Chinese disease and save millions around the world

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >I simply don't like it when people try to paint other countries as admirable underdogs
        Good thing nobody did this in here.
        But of course you do feel compelled to defend the US government the moment someone states that they themselves actively contributed to "getting drawn" into WW2. Because you just cannot accept that they were an aggressive party, just like all the others (which no one here ever denied).

  41. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Typically when people say someone "started" a war they mean which side escalated the conflict from being diplomatic to violent. On that basis, Japan absolutely did start the war. You add as much historical context as you want to the situation, that's just a simple fact.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah, plenty of countries have complex relationship histories (that often include hostilities or misunderstandings) that go back centuries. This notion the USA brought Pearl Harbor on itself for having gotten involved economically, diplomatically, and eventually militarily in Asia is nonsense. In its own way it is an imperialist mindset. You have no right to enter someone else's "sphere of influence" as if anyone has some right to that.

  42. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >killing hundreds of thousands of auschwitz israelites...is about my family and promotion

  43. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous
  44. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians is... is all about me
    You only think this is stupid because you're an NPC. Oppie was a maverick.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *