3 ms·
There are very convincing historical arguments on why the bomb was both unnecessary and also why it didn't in fact play any role in Japan's surrender (it sound
by pegasus 5y ago
There are very convincing historical arguments on why the bomb was both unnecessary and also why it didn't in fact play any role in Japan's surrender (it sound unlikely, but conventional bombing raids were annihilating Japanese cities at such a clip that Hiroshima and Nagasaki didn't even register as anything different with the decision-making group; they decided to capitulate when the Soviet Union declared war on Japan and all hopes of avoiding unconditional surrender were dashed). Google brings up plenty of reading material.
- kwertyoowiyop 5y agoListen to at least the end of the “Supernova in the East” episodes of Hardcore History.
- PaulHoule 5y agoThose arguments decontextualize the war and are self-defeating in that the Allies were willing to give Dresden and other cities a treatment not much different from Hiroshima in the end. At the scale of 2 bombs, the a-bomb was wasn’t a revolution in war, that wasn’t going to happen until solidly in the mid 1950s where there was a large supply of devices that were practical use. Another factor was that the U.S. thought it was very possible we’d be going to war with Russia and was slow to demobilize so there was definitely the intent to intimidate the Soviet Union even that early.
- pegasus 5y agoAdding this link: https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-08-05/hiroshima-anniversary-japan-atomic-bombs https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-08-05/hiroshima-a...