3 ms·
The weird thing about this is that I've read excerpts from Trumans diary and I've read the result of the US Strategic Bombing Survey that was done at the time a
by kybernetikos 13y ago
The weird thing about this is that I've read excerpts from Trumans diary and I've read the result of the US Strategic Bombing Survey that was done at the time and both either say outright or strongly imply that the atomic bombing was not necessary to achieve the surrender of Japan.
This is stuff written either immediately before the bombing or shortly afterwards. It's only now that people have had years of believing a narrative that we're exactly in that situation where stating that the atomic bombs were necessary is a view that can go unchallenged.
- ScottBurson 13y agoIt's only now that people have had years of believing a narrative that we're exactly in that situation where stating that the atomic bombs were necessary is a view that can go unchallenged. Indeed. Those throwing around accusations of revisionism need to question whether the history they accept is not actually the revisionist one.
- kybernetikos 13y agoJust wanted to add a reference and quote: > Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated. > > United States Strategic Bombing Survey, 1946 : http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/USSBS-PTO-Summary.html http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/USSBS-PTO-Summary.html