3 ms·
If you're seeking serious responses to the claim that the Soviet invasion was paramount and the atomic bombings irrelevant, /r/AskHistorians has had several thr
by yohui 13y ago
If you're seeking serious responses to the claim that the Soviet invasion was paramount and the atomic bombings irrelevant, /r/AskHistorians has had several threads on the subject:
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/wwii#wiki_japan_and_the_atomic_bombs http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/wwii#wiki_japan_a...
(I think mpyne's reply is "serious", though. It's always preferable to read first, but the argument presented in the article is not new. I did read the article, and I'm not surprised mypne managed to address several of its points without even looking at it.)
- gruseom 13y agoThanks. But the first thread I ran across there could hardly be more supportive of the OP's argument: http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/u6qqo/there_has_been_some_controversy_on_the_true/ http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/u6qqo/there_h... If you can point me to counterarguments more specifically, I'll look at them.
- yohui 13y agoWell, there was also a short discussion about this very article: http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1fhhf7/the_bomb_didnt_beat_japan_stalin_did_opinions_on/ http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1fhhf7/the_bo... As the top comment by /u/restricteddata points out, the argument about the Soviet role was made by Hasegawa (who the FP article did not cite). There's no refuting that the Soviet side of the story is important and relatively unrecognized (by the public). But it's hard to say exactly how events would have played out without the bomb. And the FP article's subheading, that US policy has been based on this "myth", is just a puzzling conclusion.