3 ms·

Thanks. 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/ther

by gruseom 13y ago

Thanks. 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 ago
Well, 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.