4 ms·

With all due respect, most of the arguments that you're proposing here are the result of historians rife with accusations of revisionist history - Alperovitz es

by kevinh 15y ago

With all due respect, most of the arguments that you're proposing here are the result of historians rife with accusations of revisionist history - Alperovitz especially. The Japanese did express a desire for peace before the bombs were dropped, yes, but a desire for peace is not nearly the same as an unconditional surrender. At this point, the context of this war should be noted - it occurred, in part, because of the manner in which World War I ended, an armistice (however imbalanced in its terms), which was certainly a factor in the outbreak of World War II. It's understandable that the United States wished to avoid a similar situation with Japan. Is this justification for dropping two atomic bombs on a hostile nation? I don't know; I wasn't there and I definitely don't know all the details. However, it certainly isn't as one-sided as you present it.

delackner 15y ago
What? The unbalanced armistice was a big cause of world war 2. If anything it serves as a lesson that accepting the conditional cessation of hostilities would be, in the long run, a decent exit option.
batista 15y ago
With all due respect, most of the arguments that you're proposing here are the result of historians rife with accusations of revisionist history - Alperovitz especially. Sure, but you can find similar information in many historical works, and most of it refers to actual evidence and sources of the era (correspondence, intelligence reports, etc). It's also only natural to have someone saying something unfavorable for a country's foreign policy actions to be attacked, in academia and elsewhere. Chomsky also gets that a lot, but what he says reflects exactly what third party countries think of us actions. The Japanese did express a desire for peace before the bombs were dropped, yes, but a desire for peace is not nearly the same as an unconditional surrender And why would any nation should accept an "unconditional surrender"? A conditional surrender would do just fine, if your goal is to end the war. Especially, when the conditional parts were quite trivial (the emperor and such). The "unconditional surrender" essentially meant the right to use Japan as an USA base for the next decades. It wasn't even about correcting the Japanese war atrocities, as Japanese were never made to apologize (and pay) for, say, their Manchurian massacres. Plus, it was exactly the "imbalances" of the armistice that led to World War II. An unconditional surrender, as a even greater imbalance, would have made it even worse.

by kevinh 15y ago

delackner 15y ago

What? The unbalanced armistice was a big cause of world war 2. If anything it serves as a lesson that accepting the conditional cessation of hostilities would be, in the long run, a decent exit option.

batista 15y ago

With all due respect, most of the arguments that you're proposing here are the result of historians rife with accusations of revisionist history - Alperovitz especially. Sure, but you can find similar information in many historical works, and most of it refers to actual evidence and sources of the era (correspondence, intelligence reports, etc). It's also only natural to have someone saying something unfavorable for a country's foreign policy actions to be attacked, in academia and elsewhere. Chomsky also gets that a lot, but what he says reflects exactly what third party countries think of us actions. The Japanese did express a desire for peace before the bombs were dropped, yes, but a desire for peace is not nearly the same as an unconditional surrender And why would any nation should accept an "unconditional surrender"? A conditional surrender would do just fine, if your goal is to end the war. Especially, when the conditional parts were quite trivial (the emperor and such). The "unconditional surrender" essentially meant the right to use Japan as an USA base for the next decades. It wasn't even about correcting the Japanese war atrocities, as Japanese were never made to apologize (and pay) for, say, their Manchurian massacres. Plus, it was exactly the "imbalances" of the armistice that led to World War II. An unconditional surrender, as a even greater imbalance, would have made it even worse.