||I think it's far worse to artificially extend the length of the war, when you have weapons that *could* end the war faster.
||Mass suicides, civilians given weapons and attacking Allied troops, Japanese units fighting to the death.
||The Nazis were literally fighting a war of extermination against the USSR, and it's not really comparable to the other fronts or most other wars.
||Invasion might have killed more or less than starvation, that would depend on how long they resisted, but the A-bombs killed less than either would've.
||Arbitrarily deciding whether something is a conflict or a war is dumb, seeing as they often involve the same things.
Just remember, there was a genocidal war machine conquering Europe, the Allies did everything they could to *end* the war, saving more lives than if it continued.
||It's completely indisputable that if the war had gone on, more people would've died.
||Not really, hell, we were going to give the UK a replacement CV if they lost theirs.
||Forrestal had seen many Americans killed at the battle of Iwo Jima during his trip there in February 1945.
||The Allies on the whole didn't bomb things just to kill civilians, there was a strategic goal behind that, and achieving that strategic goal means a faster end to the war.
||It's because doing that would kill more people on all sides, and they want to avoid that for numerous reasons.
||Meanwhile if a country attacks my country, I will give ressistance
This was my point, if a nation in NATO is attacked, it's treated like it was an attack on all.