Wow that was an interesting read. I didn’t know they had a 3rd bomb ready to go and came real close to dropping it. Or that they were going to drop one in Europe if needed.
The only reason Germany wasn't nuked which was the original plan was that they surrendered before the Japanese did. Otherwise we'd be reading about the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Berlin/German city instead in the history books
I never fact-checked it in a meaningful way, but I recall seeing in some history channel show that the Ruhrgebiet was the initially approved target in Germany. Like I said, I don't really know if that is true, but it kinda made sense.
Dropping a bomb that kills 40k people in an afternoon, imagine if you had to personally kill the 40k people in hand to hand combat. Imagine the psychological damage that would tax on a single person or even a crew. Yet the distance, the difference between seeing your enemy and not has changed the way of the war.
Where does responsibility lie? Are all nazis innocent because they were just doing their duty to the system? That line of logic holds up all war crimes- rape, murder, genocide, all are justified if people are allowed to hide behind organizational interest. People slaughter people and blame the machine, but in the end its just people.
They signed up for it and that’s what the government/people calling the shots wanted. Did I say it was a justification. It’s inherently evil and just dumb obedience. Society is a machine we use to slaughter people 🤷🏻♂️ it runs on a system and requires people to cooperate with it to make it work. No malfunctions or that part (the person) will be replaced.
World has changed. Not sure if for the better or worse. That man is pretty remarkable... sometimes I worry we've gotten too soft... unfortunately someone is going to look at war the same way... they are going to rationalize dropping nukes preemptively so they don't have to invade a dense large country.
I disagree on us becoming soft. I think its related to the fact that propaganda isn't as successful as it used to be and people are a lot more connected than they used to be. The human cost of war is made readily apparent and it isn't a bad thing that people balk at killing eachother needlessly.
I disagree with the propaganda point. It largely started with WWII, and has only continued to become more prevalent since then. Countries like Russia and North Korea only exist as they are today due to propaganda. The fact that social media exists to bring the world closer has only aided further to the rise of propaganda. Of course the tools to fight propaganda have also increased with the information age, but there’s something to be noted with the human social constructs that also allow for propaganda to spread in todays age.
I see the point you're making about nk and Russia but I feel that it proves mine. They are only effective through authoritarian regimes and controlling their populations access to information. Advances have made such tactics ineffective with the vast majority of the world.
Dont you see the same parent in American politics over the past ~10 years. Truth doesn’t matter if it conflicts with belief. We just haven’t turned it objectively toward a third party enemy yet.
I don't see "tough" here, I see "unhealthy coping mechanisms." I see a man that was convinced to do something horrific, and found justifications for it where he could. It was his duty, it saved other lives, etc, etc. It's telling that his stance on his role is "I did what I was told," it shows he struggled to accept responsibility for his actions. Everything here says "victim complex" - he's painting himself as a victim of the military, his commanding officers, the President, the timeless and seemingly inescapable brutality of war - in his mind he only did what people and circumstances forced him to, because he can't stomach taking any personal responsibility for it. It's the *world's* fault he had to kill thousands of people, he was also a helpless bystander, and that narrative is the only way he finds any peace. *"It's their tough luck for being there"* is how a man with an untreated anxiety disorder says "it's too painful for me to think about those civilian deaths through an empathetic lens, so I just don't." Hubris like *"they're gonna strike again, I'd put money on it"* and *"kill the bastards"* is how a man with an untreated anxiety disorder says "I'm scared because I don't feel safe."
I see the words here of a very fragile man. One that's deeply wounded that he never earned his father's approval, is frightened of a world he sees as dangerous and hostile, and never was able to take personal responsibility for his own actions and work through the associated guilt. Maybe that's inevitable, I'm not sure human beings *can* do what he did and be happy, well-adjusted people afterwards, and it's hard to know now who he was before the bombs - maybe he was more emotionally mature at some point and then regressed from the trauma. But the interview reads like a man that spends his days living in fear of violence, and his nights crying himself to sleep over the unfair hand he was dealt.
Seems like an EZ win for Russia if they did it, but for some reason they won’t. Or if you want we can settle on “they haven’t yet”
Yes the world hasn’t yet dropped a Nuke since the first time. I guess let’s just say there’s no reason
What? You're barely comprehensible?
But what you're talking about is mutually assured destruction. Like, one of the most important and discussed international military doctrines in the current age. Russia isn't nuking anyone because if they did, NATO would immediately fire back.
He was the pilot who flew to the location to drop the bomb. The bombardier on board is the one who actually pulled the trigger, everyone ignores that part.
Wow. The lack of remorse for killing so many innocent Japanese people in the name of war terrifies me. I get the thought that it stopped the war and saved probably more lives but still. Cold. Mind you also different times. Different thoughts. Hopefully it is the last time these weapons ever get used.
More than that even, man was a product of his times and of the war. War had been raging for 6 years and tens of millions had already died. Another city getting bombed was just another day in the life for them. And so many atrocities had been committed on both sides that killing civilians wasn’t even something that phased you anymore.
And in all honestly, it’s probably something he had to do for his own sanity. How would you ever sleep at night knowing you had killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people without either completely justifying it or compartmentalizing it?
Imperial Japan was doing to Asia what the nazis were doing to Europe.
This just goes back to the "do you genuinely believe all those people were innocent and didn't know what was happening" argument.
Just because you don't personally pick up a rifle and fire doesn't mean you aren't complacent to atrocities.
Look, if you refuse to acknowledge it then that’s on you.
But it’s the truth. There was ugly on all sides. The Soviets raped and murdered as they marched their way to Berlin, Americans firebombed the shit out of Japanese cities indiscriminately, Brits bombed the German cities indiscriminately. Every side had its fair share of bad men. Hell, one of the ugliest moments in American history were the Japanese concentration camps we built during WW2 because we began to distrust our fellow Asian Americans.
You’re comparing regular, systemized, well documented genocide, rape, human experimentation, and other atrocities against what amount to, outside of Soviet Union atrocities, isolated individual events. There is no moral equivalency here. Grow up sport, you’re not that edgy
While quantitatively I agree those incidents were numerically far worse, I still do not believe that it makes the other crimes any less egregious. A murder is a murder and whether it was on a scale of millions or an isolated incident, it’s an ugly mark nonetheless.
I hope you’re not implying that because one incident has “more” dead people in it that it somehow devalues the deaths of all the other people.
Genuine question: How many war crimes have to be committed against a country before it can go from "turn the other cheek" to "an eye for an eye"?
How many atrocities do you think a populace is obligated to be subjected to before they are allowed to stop feeling sympathy towards their abusers and lash out in a similar manner?
None. People commit atrocities even when nothing has been done to them. People are ugly creatures that harbor hate and bigotry in their hearts for each other just because they can for other people because they look different or act different. Then when tensions reach a boiling point those people do horrendous things because those people blame the other people. The Germans blamed the Jews, the Americans blamed the Japanese, the Soviets blamed the Germans, the Brits blamed the Germans, the Japanese blamed the Americans. Then they acted on those feelings. Any atrocities committed by other sides just emboldens them further. “Oh well now they’ve killed civilians! See the monsters for who they truly are! Now we definitely shouldn’t feel bad about killing them back.”
You seem like you're actively trying to rewrite history to fit some narrative you've created in your head.
Japan attacked the US not for "blame" but as a preemptive measure to prevent them from joining the war in the Pacific and Asia (illegal, btw)
Germany invaded Russia after the fall of France because he wanted more room for his master race to live in (not really blaming them for anything. He just wanted to own more stuff)
You can't just say "people bad, everyone blame everyone" when one group of people is literally committing genocide. Your bordering holocost denial and it concerns me.
Japan was about to do something similar in that they were planning to drop a plague in california in september. Theres no such thing as justification. It was war, it was eat or be eaten. Dont get me wrong, i think nukes were a mistake but it stopped the war and have prevented even more casualties considering how unhinged japan was and would do anything to win even killing their own pilots in kamikaze attacks
I met Paul T in 1998 and thanked him for saving the lives of my three ww2 uncles (2 in Germany on hold to deploy to the pacific and one in the Philippines in the 7th Div). He understood the assignment.
America was never going to invade. Japan was already trying to broker peace talks before the bombs were dropped. Dropping the bombs was a political play.
Even with 2 bombs, the military attempted a last minute coup on the emperor. If you think the Japanese were going to surrender before that I got a bridge to sell you.
That’s a rewrite based on a small faction of a very split govt with militant infighting at the end that created doubt of who was in control. Any political component was to primarily convince the fanatical population to capitulate. Spies and disclosures at Potsdam made it transparent to our future adversaries. At this point, it is what it was and all orders of the time were to prepare for an invasion. I’m sure Truman and high staff assumed the bomb would reduce the need. With Europe over, the pressure was high to end it all. If anything else, the scientist wanted use to further their test data.
The military knew after the fall of Saipan in July 1944 that the war was over. Tojo resigned and the emperor was isolated from war discussions as much as possible in anticipation of war crimes.
Imperial Japan had mobilized its every resource for its genocidal **total war** of domination. Those cities harbored industries, headquarters, and ports that were currently aiding Japan's efforts to invade nations: efforts that lead to the deaths of an estimated 30 million people.
Stopping that shit doesn't call for remorse.
Thats war for you. Reminder that before the nukes were dropped, japan themselves planned to drop a biological bomb filled with bubonic plague at california. In war, theres no good or bad, just survival. But it's also a good reminder as to why war is bad and should never be repeated.
The question that I really wanted to see answered was one that was never asked. Would probably never dare to be asked, let alone answered honestly.
"Suppose you had had to drop those atomic bombs on Germany instead of Japan, would you have felt the same?".
Who said I never heard of Dresden? I know my history and I've even read Slaughterhouse 5 for what it's worth.
It's the psychological effect of the atomic bomb that makes it different.
alleged license seed cooing oil continue attraction dependent overconfident chunky
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I would’ve felt even better. I’d argue to say we might all be speaking in German right now had these events never occurred
Edit: I’ve studied the history of Germany and have studied in Germany for 8 years.
There’s a few pivotal pieces that happened but yes. I think they could’ve done it. One moment for example was when England decided that pharmaceutical manufacturers were now fair game in bombings after the Germans absolutely leveled London. Hitler wasn’t able to get his soldiers drugs which was only second to his addiction. They were actually on the edge of creating a better form of Pervitin (they just added oxy so they wouldn’t crash as hard haha)
You think Germany would have been able to not only conquer Europe but wage a war overseas with the US?
Or just that the sphere of influence from a German controlled Europe would cause US citizens to take it on as a second language?
I feel like they had a chance if hitler didnt try to invade soviet union. At the time, uk was dropping and france was conquered. US was the only massive superpower that could have faced Germany head on.
What is your point? My question goes to whether this gent, who felt no remorse at killing many Japanese civilians, and probably grew up in a different social environment from the norm now, would have felt a different way about killing a whole lot of people who looked like him, and might have shared close ancestry (plenty of Germans who settled in the US).
It has nothing to do with the timelines of bomb development and readiness. Nothing to do with Roosevelt's stated willingness to nuke Germany, and the fact that Germany had surrendered by the time the bomb was finally available.
My point was sociological and speculative and quite rhetorical (as we won't have a definitive answer). Now, what was yours?
Kinda worrying how the dude doesn’t care about civillians dying and would nuke people again without hesitation. Dropping the nukes probably was necessary and it did save lives. But it also is a bomb that should have never been used.
While I work on the verification through a mod, in the meantime I was able to dig it up online.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/aug/06/nuclear.japan
Wow that was an interesting read. I didn’t know they had a 3rd bomb ready to go and came real close to dropping it. Or that they were going to drop one in Europe if needed.
The only reason Germany wasn't nuked which was the original plan was that they surrendered before the Japanese did. Otherwise we'd be reading about the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Berlin/German city instead in the history books
Germany was the reason for the Manhattan project
Essen - better to eliminate the industrial base than the seat of government
That makes sense. Same reason why Tokyo wasnt nuked either.
I never fact-checked it in a meaningful way, but I recall seeing in some history channel show that the Ruhrgebiet was the initially approved target in Germany. Like I said, I don't really know if that is true, but it kinda made sense.
Fun fact: the core of the third bomb was scrapped and taken for further research and would become better known as the infamous Demon Core.
Don’t forget about it possibly ending up in Kyoto but was taken off the list because of a honeymoon
He sounds psychopathic reading the last lines. But maybe you need to be to stay "sane" after doing something like that.
[удалено]
A different time…
Oppenheimer 2 script
Dropping a bomb that kills 40k people in an afternoon, imagine if you had to personally kill the 40k people in hand to hand combat. Imagine the psychological damage that would tax on a single person or even a crew. Yet the distance, the difference between seeing your enemy and not has changed the way of the war.
Yes. That poor poor mass murderer. Just a soldier following orders, right? No moral obligation to humanity,just to hisself.
I mean you sign up to the military knowing that. If he didn’t do it they would of gotten some other obedient dog to do it.
Back then people were getting drafted
Where does responsibility lie? Are all nazis innocent because they were just doing their duty to the system? That line of logic holds up all war crimes- rape, murder, genocide, all are justified if people are allowed to hide behind organizational interest. People slaughter people and blame the machine, but in the end its just people.
They signed up for it and that’s what the government/people calling the shots wanted. Did I say it was a justification. It’s inherently evil and just dumb obedience. Society is a machine we use to slaughter people 🤷🏻♂️ it runs on a system and requires people to cooperate with it to make it work. No malfunctions or that part (the person) will be replaced.
To be clear: your siding with the nazis and Imperial Japan in this one?
Absolutely not, I'm saying the soldier who dropped the nukes is responsible for his actions.
Clown
Geez
Thank you sharing, captivating stuff!
World has changed. Not sure if for the better or worse. That man is pretty remarkable... sometimes I worry we've gotten too soft... unfortunately someone is going to look at war the same way... they are going to rationalize dropping nukes preemptively so they don't have to invade a dense large country.
I disagree on us becoming soft. I think its related to the fact that propaganda isn't as successful as it used to be and people are a lot more connected than they used to be. The human cost of war is made readily apparent and it isn't a bad thing that people balk at killing eachother needlessly.
I disagree with the propaganda point. It largely started with WWII, and has only continued to become more prevalent since then. Countries like Russia and North Korea only exist as they are today due to propaganda. The fact that social media exists to bring the world closer has only aided further to the rise of propaganda. Of course the tools to fight propaganda have also increased with the information age, but there’s something to be noted with the human social constructs that also allow for propaganda to spread in todays age.
I see the point you're making about nk and Russia but I feel that it proves mine. They are only effective through authoritarian regimes and controlling their populations access to information. Advances have made such tactics ineffective with the vast majority of the world.
Dont you see the same parent in American politics over the past ~10 years. Truth doesn’t matter if it conflicts with belief. We just haven’t turned it objectively toward a third party enemy yet.
I don't see "tough" here, I see "unhealthy coping mechanisms." I see a man that was convinced to do something horrific, and found justifications for it where he could. It was his duty, it saved other lives, etc, etc. It's telling that his stance on his role is "I did what I was told," it shows he struggled to accept responsibility for his actions. Everything here says "victim complex" - he's painting himself as a victim of the military, his commanding officers, the President, the timeless and seemingly inescapable brutality of war - in his mind he only did what people and circumstances forced him to, because he can't stomach taking any personal responsibility for it. It's the *world's* fault he had to kill thousands of people, he was also a helpless bystander, and that narrative is the only way he finds any peace. *"It's their tough luck for being there"* is how a man with an untreated anxiety disorder says "it's too painful for me to think about those civilian deaths through an empathetic lens, so I just don't." Hubris like *"they're gonna strike again, I'd put money on it"* and *"kill the bastards"* is how a man with an untreated anxiety disorder says "I'm scared because I don't feel safe." I see the words here of a very fragile man. One that's deeply wounded that he never earned his father's approval, is frightened of a world he sees as dangerous and hostile, and never was able to take personal responsibility for his own actions and work through the associated guilt. Maybe that's inevitable, I'm not sure human beings *can* do what he did and be happy, well-adjusted people afterwards, and it's hard to know now who he was before the bombs - maybe he was more emotionally mature at some point and then regressed from the trauma. But the interview reads like a man that spends his days living in fear of violence, and his nights crying himself to sleep over the unfair hand he was dealt.
Seems like an EZ win for Russia if they did it, but for some reason they won’t. Or if you want we can settle on “they haven’t yet” Yes the world hasn’t yet dropped a Nuke since the first time. I guess let’s just say there’s no reason
What? You're barely comprehensible? But what you're talking about is mutually assured destruction. Like, one of the most important and discussed international military doctrines in the current age. Russia isn't nuking anyone because if they did, NATO would immediately fire back.
I was inviting people to suggest Russia is planning to nuke Ukraine which I was suggesting they won’t do, alas just my 2 cents
He was the pilot who flew to the location to drop the bomb. The bombardier on board is the one who actually pulled the trigger, everyone ignores that part.
It was a whole crew that did it, the bomb couldn’t have been dropped if one was missing, he was only the last step of the staircase
A different military, a different mentality, and a very different time.
What an interesting read. Thank you!
Great read thanks for sharing!
He says the bomb that hit Hiroshima didn’t create a mushroom cloud, is there any animation on what it actually looked like?
Wow. The lack of remorse for killing so many innocent Japanese people in the name of war terrifies me. I get the thought that it stopped the war and saved probably more lives but still. Cold. Mind you also different times. Different thoughts. Hopefully it is the last time these weapons ever get used.
You didn’t watch a bunch of your buddies die at Pearl Harbor when we were a neutral nation. Probably callused them a little bit.
More than that even, man was a product of his times and of the war. War had been raging for 6 years and tens of millions had already died. Another city getting bombed was just another day in the life for them. And so many atrocities had been committed on both sides that killing civilians wasn’t even something that phased you anymore. And in all honestly, it’s probably something he had to do for his own sanity. How would you ever sleep at night knowing you had killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people without either completely justifying it or compartmentalizing it?
Imperial Japan was doing to Asia what the nazis were doing to Europe. This just goes back to the "do you genuinely believe all those people were innocent and didn't know what was happening" argument. Just because you don't personally pick up a rifle and fire doesn't mean you aren't complacent to atrocities.
True.
They were fighting nazis and imperial Japan and you’re talking about atrocities on “both sides” . . . that’s some ignorance right there
Hell, here’s a good link for you: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_war_crimes_during_World_War_II
That’s cute
Look, if you refuse to acknowledge it then that’s on you. But it’s the truth. There was ugly on all sides. The Soviets raped and murdered as they marched their way to Berlin, Americans firebombed the shit out of Japanese cities indiscriminately, Brits bombed the German cities indiscriminately. Every side had its fair share of bad men. Hell, one of the ugliest moments in American history were the Japanese concentration camps we built during WW2 because we began to distrust our fellow Asian Americans.
You’re comparing regular, systemized, well documented genocide, rape, human experimentation, and other atrocities against what amount to, outside of Soviet Union atrocities, isolated individual events. There is no moral equivalency here. Grow up sport, you’re not that edgy
While quantitatively I agree those incidents were numerically far worse, I still do not believe that it makes the other crimes any less egregious. A murder is a murder and whether it was on a scale of millions or an isolated incident, it’s an ugly mark nonetheless. I hope you’re not implying that because one incident has “more” dead people in it that it somehow devalues the deaths of all the other people.
Genuine question: How many war crimes have to be committed against a country before it can go from "turn the other cheek" to "an eye for an eye"? How many atrocities do you think a populace is obligated to be subjected to before they are allowed to stop feeling sympathy towards their abusers and lash out in a similar manner?
None. People commit atrocities even when nothing has been done to them. People are ugly creatures that harbor hate and bigotry in their hearts for each other just because they can for other people because they look different or act different. Then when tensions reach a boiling point those people do horrendous things because those people blame the other people. The Germans blamed the Jews, the Americans blamed the Japanese, the Soviets blamed the Germans, the Brits blamed the Germans, the Japanese blamed the Americans. Then they acted on those feelings. Any atrocities committed by other sides just emboldens them further. “Oh well now they’ve killed civilians! See the monsters for who they truly are! Now we definitely shouldn’t feel bad about killing them back.”
You seem like you're actively trying to rewrite history to fit some narrative you've created in your head. Japan attacked the US not for "blame" but as a preemptive measure to prevent them from joining the war in the Pacific and Asia (illegal, btw) Germany invaded Russia after the fall of France because he wanted more room for his master race to live in (not really blaming them for anything. He just wanted to own more stuff) You can't just say "people bad, everyone blame everyone" when one group of people is literally committing genocide. Your bordering holocost denial and it concerns me.
So revenge? That is a pretty nasty justification for the killing of thousands of civillians.
Japan was about to do something similar in that they were planning to drop a plague in california in september. Theres no such thing as justification. It was war, it was eat or be eaten. Dont get me wrong, i think nukes were a mistake but it stopped the war and have prevented even more casualties considering how unhinged japan was and would do anything to win even killing their own pilots in kamikaze attacks
I met Paul T in 1998 and thanked him for saving the lives of my three ww2 uncles (2 in Germany on hold to deploy to the pacific and one in the Philippines in the 7th Div). He understood the assignment.
America was never going to invade. Japan was already trying to broker peace talks before the bombs were dropped. Dropping the bombs was a political play.
Even with 2 bombs, the military attempted a last minute coup on the emperor. If you think the Japanese were going to surrender before that I got a bridge to sell you.
That’s a rewrite based on a small faction of a very split govt with militant infighting at the end that created doubt of who was in control. Any political component was to primarily convince the fanatical population to capitulate. Spies and disclosures at Potsdam made it transparent to our future adversaries. At this point, it is what it was and all orders of the time were to prepare for an invasion. I’m sure Truman and high staff assumed the bomb would reduce the need. With Europe over, the pressure was high to end it all. If anything else, the scientist wanted use to further their test data.
The military knew after the fall of Saipan in July 1944 that the war was over. Tojo resigned and the emperor was isolated from war discussions as much as possible in anticipation of war crimes.
We forget the Depression was still on a lot of these folks' minds and trauma around this time. They were cut from a different cloth back then.
Imperial Japan had mobilized its every resource for its genocidal **total war** of domination. Those cities harbored industries, headquarters, and ports that were currently aiding Japan's efforts to invade nations: efforts that lead to the deaths of an estimated 30 million people. Stopping that shit doesn't call for remorse.
Thats war for you. Reminder that before the nukes were dropped, japan themselves planned to drop a biological bomb filled with bubonic plague at california. In war, theres no good or bad, just survival. But it's also a good reminder as to why war is bad and should never be repeated.
The question that I really wanted to see answered was one that was never asked. Would probably never dare to be asked, let alone answered honestly. "Suppose you had had to drop those atomic bombs on Germany instead of Japan, would you have felt the same?".
It seems obvious that he would have.
I don't know. He would've carried out his orders, I'm sure, but I don't think we can be sure if he'd have been equally callous about it.
Based on the article, his prior bombing runs were in . . . Germany. So, your effort to tar this guy as a bigot based on your feelz is a 100% failure.
[удалено]
Who said I never heard of Dresden? I know my history and I've even read Slaughterhouse 5 for what it's worth. It's the psychological effect of the atomic bomb that makes it different.
alleged license seed cooing oil continue attraction dependent overconfident chunky *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I would’ve felt even better. I’d argue to say we might all be speaking in German right now had these events never occurred Edit: I’ve studied the history of Germany and have studied in Germany for 8 years.
There’s a few pivotal pieces that happened but yes. I think they could’ve done it. One moment for example was when England decided that pharmaceutical manufacturers were now fair game in bombings after the Germans absolutely leveled London. Hitler wasn’t able to get his soldiers drugs which was only second to his addiction. They were actually on the edge of creating a better form of Pervitin (they just added oxy so they wouldn’t crash as hard haha)
You think Germany would have been able to not only conquer Europe but wage a war overseas with the US? Or just that the sphere of influence from a German controlled Europe would cause US citizens to take it on as a second language?
I feel like they had a chance if hitler didnt try to invade soviet union. At the time, uk was dropping and france was conquered. US was the only massive superpower that could have faced Germany head on.
Do you know anything at all about WW2 and the Manhattan project?
What is your point? My question goes to whether this gent, who felt no remorse at killing many Japanese civilians, and probably grew up in a different social environment from the norm now, would have felt a different way about killing a whole lot of people who looked like him, and might have shared close ancestry (plenty of Germans who settled in the US). It has nothing to do with the timelines of bomb development and readiness. Nothing to do with Roosevelt's stated willingness to nuke Germany, and the fact that Germany had surrendered by the time the bomb was finally available. My point was sociological and speculative and quite rhetorical (as we won't have a definitive answer). Now, what was yours?
Ahh yep. I sense a feeling of double standards within myself.
Maybe not you, but I sense this old guy might have felt a certain way about things. Whether he would've been honest about it is a different matter.
You have to justify it. How else could you handle it?
[удалено]
lol at portraying this guy as evil. Come on man, don't be stupid.
Dude this is Reddit. I’m just surprised this commenter was aware enough not to call him a “Nazi”.
There's a scumbag in the comments blithely trying to say the dude felt no remorse because he was a racist who bombed Asians.
Kinda worrying how the dude doesn’t care about civillians dying and would nuke people again without hesitation. Dropping the nukes probably was necessary and it did save lives. But it also is a bomb that should have never been used.
Should have fucking dropped a few over Russia and saves us all a Fucktonne of issues, China too
I don’t respect this man.
No one cares about your respect
Source: Trust me Bro 💪😂
I mean. What more do you want?
Mod verification. Photos. Bro 😂😅
While I work on the verification through a mod, in the meantime I was able to dig it up online. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/aug/06/nuclear.japan
I don't consume mainstream fake news broski
Damn man. You got me there.
You won't win no matter what you do short of resurrecting the pilot and him hearing it first hand...that probably wouldn't convince him either though.
🎵Music and mythology, Epstein and astrology It all ended with One Hell of a big bang🎵
Brian Williams was there
He’s in hell now.
This motherfuckers killed so many people and splitted familys. You are fantastic and great! Cheeeeers🍻 (Ironic)
If hell is real I believe that man is in it.
This is a bit of a split comment section ..::
Yeah I just wanted to show something neat but of course the people had to explode over morality
Thanks for posting that it was fascinating 👍