Text 1: Historian Park argues that the U.S. decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was justified as the alternative to a costly invasion of Japan. Estimates at the time projected hundreds of thousands of Allied casualties in a ground assault; the bombs, she contends, ended the war faster.
Text 2: Historian Singh accepts the casualty estimates' role in decision-making but argues that they should not settle the moral question. By August 1945, Japan was already exploring surrender through Soviet channels; the bombs may have shortened the war by weeks at most. The "invasion alternative" framework, Singh contends, presented a binary choice that the actual diplomatic situation did not require.
Based on the texts, how would Singh (Text 2) most likely respond to Park's claim?
- A
He would say that historical decisions cannot be evaluated.
- B
He would deny that any Allied casualties would have occurred in an invasion.
- C
He would agree that the bombs were the only alternative to invasion.
- Dcheck_circle
He would argue that the binary bombs vs. invasion framing oversimplifies what other paths to ending the war were available.
Explanation
Singh challenges the framing rather than the estimates. C captures his position. A reverses; B and D misrepresent him.