3 ms·
> Also, those bombs saved a lot of lives. I know many will disagree, but it's true. This is a hotly, perhaps one of the most hotly contended, modern questions
by parl_match 2y ago
> Also, those bombs saved a lot of lives. I know many will disagree, but it's true.
This is a hotly, perhaps one of the most hotly contended, modern questions of World War II. To say what you said so blithely betrays your ignorance on the subject.
General modern consensus suggests that the first is up for debate for various reasons, but that the second one really didn't do much to change the Japanese government's course.
Regardless if you disagree with that above statement or not, positioning your uninformed opinion as fact is a bad look.
- historyartifucj 2y ago[flagged]
- aegypti 2y agoA specific strain of 20th century revisionism considers their use questionable in academia, it isn’t remotely a consensus (outside JP) and it certainly isn’t modern.
- parl_match 2y agoIt's not a "specific strain", it's an overwhelming consensus that "both weren't necessary". There are, of course, people who take hard lines that "both were necessary", but they are in the minority. At this point the argument has shifted to "was the bombing of Nagasaki necessary to end the war" with the common thought agreeing more or less that some initial large show of force was necessary.