There would never have been any peace treaty, the allies had already agreed that axis surrender must be unconditional.
Japan having one condition would not have matteted, because the allies were not interested in a conditional surrender.
If you ignore the many examples throughout history of more violence being the solution to violence, perhaps you may have a point.
I can go on now?
Everybody always gets hung up on the nukes but I never see anyone complaining about the firebombing which killed many times more people (or the Japanese and their many attempts at biological warfare).
War is inherently bad, and using powerful weapons to end it sooner is the pragmatic and often moral choice. Would you have preferred that the allies invaded Japan, causing millions more to die? Or perhaps simply blocade Japan, causing millions more to die? It’s easy to be moralistic when you don’t have to make decisions that have millions of lives hanging on them.
I’m not sure what part of my comment you took to mean I thought anything pleasant about the Ottoman empire but cool thanks for the info?
There was a somewhat peaceful coexistence of all kinds of religions before the collapse of the Ottoman Empire (let’s not get into the genocides the Ottoman Empire committed here).
“If you ignore all of the racially driven genocides, the Ottomans were quite chill”
“Chat shit, get banged”
Heed! Paper! Now!
He was ousted because capitalists are shit scared of socialists getting anywhere near the levers of power.
Of course it had nothing to do with the repressive authoritarian regime killing its own people because they had the temerity to protest.
Ah, the fine germanic honour culture at work!
the germanic honor-culture has survived here and we value doing the right/honorable thing more than anything else
Hahaha
[Except ](http://www.the.com/ germanic honor-culture has survived here and we value doing the right/honorable thing more than anything else) for when they didn’t
Yeah that would be the out part.
Did you read the article, or are you just not smart enough to work why that is different?
in international waters
You can’t see why a plane launching flares in the path of a helicopter in international waters is problematic?
Just another day in the fascist ethnostate.
Something a lot of US fascists asked in the first few years of WW2 when it came to arms shipments to Britain!
I could live with this.
“I’m going for a banging fascist ethnostate!”
Its June 1940. France has surrendered, the continent has fallen, and what remains of the British army has just evacuated from Dunkirk leaving all of its heavy equipment behind. At this stage of the war the British army is outnumbered at least 12-1 by an enemy that is infitely better equipped than it.
Should Britain have surrendered to the Nazis because they were losing to “a better army?”.
That you think there would be outrage highlights your lack of understanding.
International waters are just so. It’s only a problem when a country decides to try and restrict access to international waters, and one way to show that this decision is not accepted is to sail warships through it.