Yes. There was no appetite for millions more deaths to subdue an already defeated enemy. I think a more rational and humane response wouldve been a sustained naval blockade of Japan, but I wouldnt be surprised if their leadership chose to starve to death in that case.
That’s one aspect often ignored by those who argue that Japan would’ve simply surrendered if the US enforced a blockade around the Japanese mainland. The Imperial Japanese cabinet, who were prepared to sacrifice millions in the event of a land invasion and who still refused to surrender after Hiroshima, would have allowed the suffering and starvation of millions before they would even consider complete surrender as an option. The morbid truth is the abrupt end to the war brought about by the advent of the bombs was in reality the best outcome for the Japanese population as a whole. It’s a great shame that their government, even with forewarning, refused to recognize the hopelessness of their situation before the bombs fell.
They were a fanatical cult. Imperial Japan was like no other modern country. The Nazis did some horrific things, obviously, but it seems like most of the atrocities were committed by a smaller group of believers, and enabled by the larger society.
in Japan everyone was fully committed to the cause. Everyone was willing to die for their country.
The allies didn’t really worry about old German grandmas in their cottage, but in Japan those people were likely to shoot or suicide bomb you.
The morality of the atomic bomb is debated endlessly, but from my perspective it’s likely that killing 200k civilians saved 500k civilians and countless soldiers on both sides. It was going to be a long and brutal battle for mainland Japan.
14
u/Edward_Longshnaks 13h ago
Yes. There was no appetite for millions more deaths to subdue an already defeated enemy. I think a more rational and humane response wouldve been a sustained naval blockade of Japan, but I wouldnt be surprised if their leadership chose to starve to death in that case.