Not a new revelation, but the article pulls from good sources and it’s nice to see this myth repudiated in a mainstream outlet.
Not a new revelation, but the article pulls from good sources and it’s nice to see this myth repudiated in a mainstream outlet.
This article references the existence of lots of alternatives for ending the war but doesn’t identify any of them. Anyone know what other methods or paths specifically would have led to the war ending in just a few weeks and without an invasion of Japan, as mentioned in the article? Genuinely curious, not arguing the claim.
The Japanese were already negotiating to end the war. The sticking point was over the U.S. demand for unconditional surrender vs. the Japanese insistence on preserving their emperor in some form. The eventual surrender did keep the emperor, so the atomic bombs didn’t impact that issue.
Vaporizing 200,000 civilians over semantics
JK it was to show the Soviets we had the bomb and were willing to use it
Both completely deranged sentiments
Not to mention the fact that it would have been primarily soviets doing the land invasion, and the US didn’t want to get beaten to the punch twice in a row.
That whole narrative smacks of racism and cowardice
"We had to kill 200k civilians or else we would have had to invade the mainland and risk the lives of our soldiers, who are expected to risk their lives. White lives matter. Anyway they were fanatical, the women would have hurled themselves off of cliffs, dashed their babies against rocks and even the children would have taken up bayonets. How many of our boys would have died? 200,000?