• @sailingbythelee
    link
    English
    58 months ago

    Sure, but that wasn’t known at the time so it wasn’t a relevant factor in the decision to drop the bombs.

    • @SmilingSolaris
      link
      English
      -5
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      But it was though. We had intercepted the communications between the Japanese foreign affairs head and the ambassador to the Soviet Union. The ambassador was attempting to get the Soviets to mediate a peace with the allies as they were not yet at war. We had their entire negotiation strategy. We had their intent and knew their wants, must haves and no go’s. All of which lines up with the peace we ultimately would have.

      We 100% knew. All we had to do was sit down and negotiate.

      • @sailingbythelee
        link
        English
        78 months ago

        The Japanese were not ready to surrender unconditionally, and that was the internationally agreed endpoint of the war with Germany and Japan. Unconditional surrender and occupation was considered necessary to completely break the German and Japanese spirit and ensure no third world war. The Allies didn’t want a repeat of the inter-war period between WW1 and WW2 where Germany was not occupied and could tell itself that it hadn’t really lost WW1. The Allies agreed that the way to avoid this problem was to comprehensively defeat and then force unconditional surrender on the Axis powers, followed by occupation, re-education, and rebuilding. When you look at Japan and Germany’s success after WW2, it’s hard to argue that the Allies were wrong to take that stance. The atomic bombs are a side issue. The invasion of Japan would have been so much worse.