If Pearl Harbor hadn’t of happened, neither of them would have happened.
Nagasaki is harder though not impossible to defend.
Hiroshima on the other hand? Yeah. Understandable and perhaps justifiable (though *just* may be too a strong of a word for me, I’m not sure there is any *just* in war,. *Justifiable* vs just seems less certain).
Without it, we likely need a D-Day like landing in Japan sacrificing a bunch of American lives, who hadn’t entered the war until Pearl Harbor.
And all of this debate ignores something else.
The fire bombing of Tokyo likely killed more people & did more destruction. And the US intentionally targeted the wooden structures with the intent that the napalm would ignite it all (which it did) creating a conflagration. The wooden structures were in the residential area of Tokyo which, unsurprisingly, resulted in mass civilian casualties.
Everyone brings up dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But how do you feel about fire bombing Tokyo?
To me, that’s harder to wrap my head around. Hiroshima at least had a large concentration of military and munitions facilities.
Pearl Harbor was like 9/11. Yes, it was attacked by Japanese bombers but the circumstances around it screams inside job.
You think Pearl Harbor was an inside job? Or as you messing with me? Please say you’re messing with me.
I am not messing with you. I don't think you care to know but there is plenty of documentation outside of the propanda of the time and what is taught in schools.
These idiotic conspiracies are fxxking dumb.
Are there advance signs for such big events? Always. But there’s a reason there is an expression “hindsight is 20/20”. There’s another issue here. Both luck & incompetence are constant forces in the real world.
Take just a few months ago.
Trump doesn’t turn his head or the shooter is slightly more competent and he’s dead.
Fast forward 50 years and you can see some conspiracy about how the shooter *intentionally* missed. There’s *zero* evidence that’s the case.
And yet, Trump lives.
Pearl Harbor was almost certainly a false flag operation so that the US could change public opinion to enter the war.
If you honestly believe this then you’re a fxxking idiot.
This is a pretty mainstream theory that's been in circulation since at the latest the 80s.
It's an accepted fact that America wanted to enter the war and was actively trying to figure out how.
*America* did not want to enter the war. If that’s what *America* wanted we have already entered the war as nothing was stopping us.
When people make this statement they mean *FDR* wanted to enter the war.
This is correct or at least that he wanted to know whether we were all in or all out. And there’s zero question he did at least appreciate the fact the question was definitively answered with Pearl Harbor.
There was some hay made around the fact that a good amount of the naval fleet wasn’t in Pearl Harbor at the time. Okay.
But do we honestly think the Japanese wouldn’t take full advantage of what was left if they were competent? If so, why weren’t the above ground fuel reserves not hit? Admiral Yamamoto, the architect of the Pearl Harbor attack, told them to hit it and said something to the effect of, “whatever you do, make sure to hit the fuel depot.” But they’d didn’t. But it was there! That would have set us back 2-3 years.
So you’re telling me FDR had the foresight to send some part of the naval fleet into the pacific but not to figure out how to protect the fuel reserves?
Or was this some sort of double false flag? Of course not. That’d be stupid.
cool story bro
since you already know everything I'm out.
I don’t know everything but I know more than you. Hence why you’re out.
"False Flag" overstates the case by more than a little, unless you have evidence I'm unaware of?
US military is and was crule. It is probably mostly luck and good work after the wars which helpt that it is no desaster for all future. The Japanese recuperated as a strong country.
Oddbean new post about login | logout 
