4 ms·
Different people read these things differently, of course, but it seems to me that the article's factual claims—for example, that Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't
by gruseom 13y ago
Different people read these things differently, of course, but it seems to me that the article's factual claims—for example, that Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't of such dramatic magnitude as we think, in context; or that there weren't many city targets left to destroy—answer your objection. If the article is wrong it must be either because its facts are wrong or because it leaves out more important facts.
It's true that the Wikipedia article paints a completely different picture. I'd like to know what the OP would say about that.
- jlgreco 13y agoWell, from what was immediately observable to anyone who wasn't in the city at the time, the result really wasn't uniquely dramatic. The radiation and the fact that a single plane with a single bomb did it were game-changers but to anyone outside the city looking in it would appear to be another fire-storm bombing, albeit larger than Dresden and in a far shorter time-frame than Tokyo. That is why I think it really would take more time for things to settle in after a single bomb. The second bomb drives home the "yes, this really is what it looks like; this isn't like before." factor. I think it would have taken more time for a complete appreciation of what happened at Hiroshima to sink in. Whether or not a complete appreciation of that single bombing would have lead to surrender is debatable, I'm inclined to think not.