3 ms·
I can't find the link right now, but have read a fairly convincing argument that it was the conventional type of bombing, not nuclear, that caused the Japanese
by mb_72 9y ago
I can't find the link right now, but have read a fairly convincing argument that it was the conventional type of bombing, not nuclear, that caused the Japanese to surrender. Still a terrible thing for Japanese civilians though.
- vkou 9y agoThe Soviet invasion of Manchuria was another straw.
- FabHK 9y agoI think it would be wrong to characterise that as the consensus, though. My understanding is that historians haven't come to a conclusive assessment, but that the majority view is that it did cut the war short and save lives (net).
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- manangatangy 9y agoOne of these could be the article you are referring to. [0] https://www.thenation.com/article/why-the-us-really-bombed-hiroshima/ https://www.thenation.com/article/why-the-us-really-bombed-h... [1] http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/30/the-bomb-didnt-beat-japan-stalin-did/ http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/30/the-bomb-didnt-beat-japa...
- mb_72 9y agoYes, thank you!
- ghostcluster 9y agoThe conventional bombing killed more people than Hiroshima and Nagasaki as well.