Are you saying US had only two options after the bombing of the Pearl habour, either nuking japan or surrendering? US had already struck at military bases in japan.
But the commander of the allied forces Eisenhower disagrees with you. They say japan was already defeated. I guess they were more knowledgeable on it.
GENERAL DWIGHT EISENHOWER
(Supreme Commander of Allies Forces in Europe)
". . . the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."
Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63.
There is no question that Russians, Japanese and all the forces did war crimes. But the notion that nuking japan was not a war crime is wrong. Because US nuked japan as a power projection. The war WAS already WON when US nuked japan.
You have swallowed the propaganda, the truth is Japan offered to surrender of course with conditions. And the atomic bombs was US's idea. By the time US nuked Japan, they were ready to surrender.
The real truth is US was driven by vengence after the Pearl habour attack. They wanted to show Japan who the real boss is. It was simply power projection.
And nuking a country for such a trivial thing, is a war crime that too after the enemy was defeated.
It will be shocking as long as people blindly belive in others' propaganda. The reality is such a war crime the biggest mankind has ever seen is justified by Americans. That is wrong. This is not supporting imperial japan, but at least the world needs to understand what US did was wrong and not needed. and hence a war crime.
Also Japan was ready to surrender before US nuked japan
Dude, are you really that thick?
When US was attacked by the Japanese, we were damaged so bad that we cannot even launch a proper attack until August 1942 in Guadalcanal.
That's 9 months after the attack, that raid you refer to is not a proper sustainable strike and no we cannot keep on sending B-25 at a one way attack from our carrier
The prospect of Japanese attack Pearl Harbour is to destroy as many as our ship to so we will not seek a confrontation with japan
So yes, basically there are two choice, fight that will eventually lead to the nuke or surrender
About General Eisenhower view, that would just be his view, he was not in PTO at that time, so his view does not reflect much
The truth is, even a conditional surrender is offered by the Japanese (Where you provide no proof that ever had one) the surrender would not accept any form of conditional surrender, the Japanese still have considerable amount of man power and equipment in Manchuria and Formosa, they still have 3000-5000 fighter planes for preparation of invasion of home island
The core power of Japanese force were not destroyed, but yes, we do we're winning the war, but war would not stop for waiting a surrender, so we should give Japanese 4 month to think about should they surrender or not? And meanwhile we just sit on our *** and do nothing?
Dude, it's not important that the "Offer" to surrender, that does not mean anything, the "acceptance" of surrender is the important parts, not what they offered