4 ms·
They dropped the first and Japan did not surrender. Only after the second. So, accepting it was the best way to end the war, it was necessary to use 2. From wha
by sanoli 11y ago
They dropped the first and Japan did not surrender. Only after the second. So, accepting it was the best way to end the war, it was necessary to use 2. From what I've read, many high officials still didn't want to accept the surrender, even after the second bomb.
- ourmandave 11y agoJapan didn't surrender until the Soviets declared war and wiped out their million man army in Manchuria which was after the bombs were dropped.
- hga 11y agoIt started in between, and the Soviets had only made great progress, the IJA wasn't quite at the "wiped out" level. However this thesis runs into at least two problems: The Soviets were no great threat to the home islands, at least without the naval oriented Allies providing ships, boats and air cover. Nor do I recall them showing any great interest in that decisive part of the end game, vs. playing the same game they'd started with Eastern Europe. Which, let us not forget, included mass murder of locals: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_massacre The Emperor mentioned the atomic bombing in his famous radio broadcast, not the Soviet invasion. (Very few other contemporaneous, reliable records survived the mass destruction of documents before the occupation.) Few doubt that it was a cause of the invasion, but there's absolutely no support for it being a greater cause than the atomic bombings, with the promise of more to come.