Originally posted by Ripsnort And the "unconditional surrender" that the USA asked for, was not "unconditional".
Originally posted by 1K3 quote:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Originally posted by Ripsnort And the "unconditional surrender" that the USA asked for, was not "unconditional". --------------------------------------------------------------------------------in what way... give some examples.
Originally posted by SaburoS It is just beyond me how some can justify conventional or firebombing that killed more people during the war but have a problem with a single bomb that was more efficient at what bombs were designed to do. Nothing clean about war. It was the right thing to do.This coming from someone who believes that Japan was a defeated nation, its people tired for war and would have surrendered.I'm half-Japanese, my mom lived through the firebombing (she was eight).Total war. Because of those two bombs, there hasn't been a WWIII.
Originally posted by Hangtime How many nations have, after receiving the surrender of another, invested billions in rebuilding that nation, installed a democratic government, provided for mutual defense of it and returned that nation to autonomous rule?Just curious.
Originally posted by Staga Do you think it was done just because of good faith?Just curious.