4 ms·
In the first couple pages there is an argument made that the Japanese supreme council didn't seem to react to news of the first bomb and the associated casualti
by gwright 13y ago
In the first couple pages there is an argument made that the Japanese supreme council didn't seem to react to news of the first bomb and the associated casualties.
I don't think it is easy for us today to understand how slow information was to travel during the time of the war nor is it easy for us to understand how incomprehensible it would be to accept reports about a single bomb creating as much destruction as was reported at the time.
While the slow reaction of Japan might be incomprehensible if the same events happened today I think it is dangerously misleading to apply todays standards regarding communication loops and the destructive force of atom bombs to the events of the late 1940s.
- bjhoops1 13y agoThat's why the author lists a number of examples from roughly the same time period (or earlier e.g. Lincoln/McClellan) as a means of comparison. It's anecdotal, to be sure, but then again this is history, not science.
- yohui 13y agoThe two examples given were of a singular leader responding to something that called for immediate action. The Japanese were hardly in a position to strike back against the atomic bomb. In the absence of an obvious response, it's not surprising that it took time for their leaders, a group, to come to a decision to surrender, considering their culture and society. (I do agree that the role of the Soviets is indeed underplayed, but in its desire to make a point the article overreaches.)