this post was submitted on 11 Oct 2026
523 points (98.5% liked)

Greentext

8840 readers
1350 users here now

This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.

Be warned:

If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Early_To_Risa@sh.itjust.works
523
Surpreisenheimer (sh.itjust.works)
submitted 4 days ago by Gullible@sh.itjust.works to c/greentext@sh.itjust.works
58 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

>Mr Oppen, I'm afraid to inform you that your creation, "Japmelter 3000 Megaladon Ultrakill" has been used in...an unexpected manner.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] SippyCup@lemmy.world 5 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Hiroshima was not a military target, that was a lie Truman told to try to smooth over the fact that he'd just committed a horrific war crime.

Two committees—the Target Committee and the Interim Committee—were convened to advise U.S. leaders on the atomic bomb. The prioritization of maximizing the bomb’s psychological impact on the Japanese population and leadership is the common thread that binds the recommendations of the two committees.

But the identification of military objectives by the Interim Committee was a rationalization meant to obscure the true aims of the Hiroshima bombing. The Interim Committee’s recommendation was an endorsement of terror bombing with a legal veneer.

At bottom, Stimson wanted to kill as many workers and their families possible.

[–] mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

You need to post your sources if you're using direct quotes

[–] kossa@feddit.org 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)
[–] mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interim_Committee

Did you not even read your own source? Your quote doesn't appear in there at all. In fact there's multiple sections of this article that back up what I stated, as quoted:

Mr. Byrnes recommended, and the Committee agreed, that the Secretary of War should be advised that, while recognizing that the final selection of the target was essentially a military decision, the present view of the Committee was that the bomb should be used against Japan as soon as possible; that it be used on a war plant surrounded by workers’ homes; and that it be used without prior warning.

Or later:

...that the weapon be used against Japan at the earliest opportunity, that it be used without warning, and that it be used on a dual target, namely, a military installation or war plant surrounded by or adjacent to homes or other buildings most susceptible to damage.

Emphasis in both quotes were added by me.

If you're going to start throwing sources at people, you should at least fucking read them first.

[–] kossa@feddit.org 2 points 2 days ago

Erm, a "dual target" is different from "we want to eliminate this military installation, but we cannot avoid hitting civilians with our current capabilities". Dual target means exactly that "we want to hit civilian stuff just as much as military targets".