4 ms·
>I am not entirely convinced that it was so, but I do think it is reasonable that a few days is not sufficient time to understand the full magnitude and novel n
by moogleii 13y ago
>I am not entirely convinced that it was so, but I do think it is reasonable that a few days is not sufficient time to understand the full magnitude and novel nature of such an event.
The article addresses this.
- jlgreco 13y agoWe must be reading different articles. The extent to which the article covers this it appears to be agreeing with me. Basically that they heard there was a bombing, did not consider it a crisis, and had not yet received their full reports. The article argues that the surrender could not have been motivated by the bomb because the timing was wrong and they did not yet have a full appreciation of what happened. To this extent, the article meshes neatly with the assertion that the second bomb was dropped before the first was understood. However, the notion that the bombs would not have made them surrender is not supported by the fact that they did not surrender following the bombs. They did not have time to do so. It is an unknown if they would have, had they been given more time.