Not a new revelation, but the article pulls from good sources and it’s nice to see this myth repudiated in a mainstream outlet.

You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
34 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
27 points
*

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

The Western Allies slowed their approach into Germany because it was agreed between them and the Soviet Union on what the occupation zones should have been prior to the invasion.

In a humanitarian gesture, should the Western Allies have accepted a German surrender in which Germany surrendered only on the condition that they would be occupied by the Americans?

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

Yes? What kind of stupid question is that

permalink
report
parent
reply

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Community stats

  • 3

    Monthly active users

  • 96

    Posts

  • 94

    Comments

Community moderators