There's every year the same ritual: Questions whether the two nuclear bomb attacks were justified.
Every year people think about the same two options - nukes or invasion. And that's bollocks.
The Japanese didn't fight for U.S. surrender in 1945. They fought for moderate peace terms.
But one of many alternatives to dropping two nukes (and destroying plenty other cities throughout 1945 with conventional menas) was to invade and have hundreds of thousands of troops killed.
Another alternative was to offer moderate peace terms such as a withdrawal from foreign countries, independence for Formosa and Korea, limitation of naval tonnage, return to pre-coup civilian government. The Japanese would have agreed almost certainly.*
But one of many alternatives to dropping two nukes (and destroying plenty other cities throughout 1945 with conventional menas) was to invade and have hundreds of thousands of troops killed.
Another alternative was to offer moderate peace terms such as a withdrawal from foreign countries, independence for Formosa and Korea, limitation of naval tonnage, return to pre-coup civilian government. The Japanese would have agreed almost certainly.*
The nuclear massacres were the best choice only for enforcing the most extremist demand; (quasi-)unconditional surrender.
S O
*: The war could have ended like this in early 1945, with the whole of
Korea occupied by the U.S. instead of Okinawa, and there would be no
North Korea today.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment