Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

If you accept that peace negotiations could have happened or that bombing a different location could have yielded the same results it's hard to justify which is why most Americans refuse to entertain the idea.

Peace negotiations implied a conditional surrender. The Japanese didn't want solely to preserve the monarchy, they wanted to preserve their government as it was. And most of the Japanese high command wanted to keep at least Korea and Formosa, these weren't acceptable terms. Even if the US didn't abolish the monarchy out of pragmatism they wrote Japan's new constitution and effectively putted an end to Japanese imperialism making Japan a democracy. Germany was given an armistice in 1918 and the end result was bad, that's why the allies were so focused on demanding unconditional surrender.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

>Germany was given an armistice in 1918 and the end result was bad

:marseyquestion: Is that really your takeaway from WW1 and how we got to WW2?

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

No, that would be a gross simplification.

But the armistice inadvertently created the "stab in the back" myth which fueled resentment and the National-Socialists, and the Peace Treaty added fuel to the fire. Many Germans legitimately thought they could have won the war if it wasn't for political treachery.

During WW2 the allies decided the Axis nations should undergo total regime change, and being military stomped meant radicals wouldn't have the "we weren't really defeated, our government betrayed us and surrendered while we could still fight" excuse in the post-war.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Link copied to clipboard
Action successful!
Error, please refresh the page and try again.