17 ms·
Countries don't capitulate in the face of strategic bombing. They certainly would have been willing to negotiate a peace (as most losing combatants are), but s
by tsotha 11y ago
Countries don't capitulate in the face of strategic bombing. They certainly would have been willing to negotiate a peace (as most losing combatants are), but sans nuclear weapons there would be no unconditional surrender.
- e12e 11y agoLooks like we're both right: nuclear bombs are essentially strategic bombing -- and I misremembered the reason Japan was in the process of capitulating prior to the nuclear attacks -- but there have been a lot of discussion indicating that Japan was indeed in the process of surrendering prior to the attacks, see eg: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2011/08/07/why_did_japan_surrender/ http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2011/08/07/...
- tsotha 11y agoThey knew they were losing and would have been happy to conclude a peace treaty. That's not the same thing as surrender, though.
- a8da6b0c91d 11y agoThe bombs probably had no affect. The Japanese leadership surrendered because of the USSR invasion. The Soviets were clearly going to sweep down the islands and there was no hope to hold out.
- tsotha 11y agoI don't believe that for a second.