4 ms·
>...we know hiroshima and nagasaki had no bearing on the japanese decision to surrender. I think this is an interesting idea but I would love to see a source o
by skadamou 8y ago
>...we know hiroshima and nagasaki had no bearing on the japanese decision to surrender.
I think this is an interesting idea but I would love to see a source on this.
When I took a Japan at War class in college our professor seemed to be of the opinion that using the atom bomb was what finally convinced the Japanese to surrender unconditionally but that they would have agreed to a conditional surrender as long as their emperor was guaranteed some form of independence. What are your thoughts on this?
- avn2109 8y agoI'm not the parent but I wrote a comment about this elsewhere in the thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19115219 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19115219 and another similar comment previously https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10485563 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10485563
- deogeo 8y agoavn2109 gave some sources in another comment - let me add one more: https://mises.org/wire/atomic-bombing-japan-reconsidered https://mises.org/wire/atomic-bombing-japan-reconsidered
- jpfr 8y agoThat is the justification for the bomb for the American public. Many Japanese cities (sixty-ish) were destroyed by traditional firebombing. For the Japanese, Hiroshima and Nagasaki simply meant "two more cities". Two days after Hiroshima, Russia declared war against Japan. So their strategic position in the war became hopeless. Historians believe Russia entering the war shaped the surrender much more than the atomic bomb. https://nationalpost.com/news/did-the-atomic-bombings-of-hiroshima-and-nagasaki-really-end-the-war https://nationalpost.com/news/did-the-atomic-bombings-of-hir...
- gandhium 8y ago> Historians believe Let me guess - Russian historians? Since the link you've pasted wasn't from historian.