The prevailing sentiment was that the Japanese would not surrender until their home islands were totally conquered. Their government was in the process of preparing the civilian population to fight to the death. (Research the invasion of Okinawa if you want to know what a US invasion of the main island would have been like.) In a version of the trolley dilemma, the American rational was that the loss of life in two horrific attacks that would shock the Japanese into surrender was less evil than the alternative of invading their home islands.
I’m not making that argument, or saying there were no alternatives, just that the Americans were weighing the loss of life (including civilians) involved in a nuclear bombing against the loss of life (including civilians) in invading the islands.
Notwithstanding other unthought of solutions, the strategy worked, and the apparent alternative would have been brutal.
Allieds had decided together and told the Japanese that they’d accept nothing but unconditional surrender. At that point asking for anything would be an attempt to set terms.
lol, the prevailing sentiment according to Taniwha420, the human pretzel, so called for the shocking degrees they bend facts to fit their narrative. puff puff? I think I’ll pass.
There’s just as many voices, and evidence, that the Japanese were looking for a way out of the war. There were other “non-brutal” options you ignore, pretending they didn’t exist. It would be one thing if you presented both sides honestly, but clearly you’re just AFP, another fucking propagandist.
I don’t understand. What balance, what lives?
The prevailing sentiment was that the Japanese would not surrender until their home islands were totally conquered. Their government was in the process of preparing the civilian population to fight to the death. (Research the invasion of Okinawa if you want to know what a US invasion of the main island would have been like.) In a version of the trolley dilemma, the American rational was that the loss of life in two horrific attacks that would shock the Japanese into surrender was less evil than the alternative of invading their home islands.
I’m not making that argument, or saying there were no alternatives, just that the Americans were weighing the loss of life (including civilians) involved in a nuclear bombing against the loss of life (including civilians) in invading the islands.
Notwithstanding other unthought of solutions, the strategy worked, and the apparent alternative would have been brutal.
deleted by creator
Didn’t they want to surrender on their terms though?
deleted by creator
They weren’t in much of a position to set terms, were they
I mean no they weren’t, but when they set terms that they were going to get anyways… is it really setting terms?
Allieds had decided together and told the Japanese that they’d accept nothing but unconditional surrender. At that point asking for anything would be an attempt to set terms.
lol, the prevailing sentiment according to Taniwha420, the human pretzel, so called for the shocking degrees they bend facts to fit their narrative. puff puff? I think I’ll pass.
There’s just as many voices, and evidence, that the Japanese were looking for a way out of the war. There were other “non-brutal” options you ignore, pretending they didn’t exist. It would be one thing if you presented both sides honestly, but clearly you’re just AFP, another fucking propagandist.