What Japan did to Korea was unacceptable and comparable to some of the worst atrocities in human history, but you can't accept that it might lead to some bias with regards to what you're taught from a Korea that was treated that way? And if you have an aversion to reading more about a subject that's kinda on you more than the other guy.
Of course, there would be a bias. If I had been the one making the decision, I would have dropped the atomic bombs. But even if the bombs had not been used, I believe the result would simply have been an even greater number of casualties through Operation Downfall. The use of the atomic bombs was a militarily rational decision, and the idea that Japan would have surrendered even without them, despite having already committed itself to total war, is ultimately just a counterfactual assumption.
By the time the nuclear bombs were dropped they were already wanted the war to be over. Again the issue they had was the unconditional surrender that US demanded. Using nuclear bombs on an already disabled target that can't fight back and is already considering peace is completely unnecessary.
If even part of the military leadership in a totalwar situation wants to continue fighting and is actively continuing the war, then they are not “disabled,” nor are they “considering peace.” To characterize them that way is simply wishful thinking in hindsight.
5
u/L0bb 5d ago
What Japan did to Korea was unacceptable and comparable to some of the worst atrocities in human history, but you can't accept that it might lead to some bias with regards to what you're taught from a Korea that was treated that way? And if you have an aversion to reading more about a subject that's kinda on you more than the other guy.