This and several other little gems are in the article. Overall it is a liberal aligned screed with these glaring errors:
In the quote above, it ignores the fact that surrender is the simplest thing in the world. Stop fighting. It isn't complicated. Just stop, lay down your arms and raise your hands. Sure a vindictive enemy (like Russia) may kill a bunch of you anyway, but maybe you should not have attacked them in the first place. Wars are to be avoided for a reason.
The author decries that the US did not "define" unconditional surrender. Color me dense but I think the term "unconditional" means without conditions. The Japanese wanted conditions, so it wasn't unconditional, and the American public would not have accepted it.
By the end of the war, the concept of punishment for their egregious hostility had not nearly dissipated. Heck, here we are more than 70 years later still pissed off about it. If I murder a man, the state doesn't let me go if I apologize. They'll punish me anyway. Why should it be different for groups of people?
Wasn’t unconditional surrender defined in the Potsdahm accords? I believe it was. The Japanese knew what it meant but we’re trying to have their cake and eat it too.
Peace feeler:
“Hey, USA, now that we have dragged you into this thing, drained your treasury and killed your sons en masse, why don’t we call it a draw (at least until we can rebuild and have another go at it). Oh, and rest assured that we ever go a bomb we would never ever drop it on your cities.”
Leftist tripe indeed.
It actually was conditional, if it were truly unconditional, Hirohito would have been hung right alongside Tojo.