3 ms·
"Why did it take them 3 days to sit down and discuss it?" His argument seems to come down to this 3 day delay between Hiroshima and the Supreme Council meeting
by Aqueous 13y ago
"Why did it take them 3 days to sit down and discuss it?"
His argument seems to come down to this 3 day delay between Hiroshima and the Supreme Council meeting. He is not looking at this through the lens of the Supreme Council, or even any Japanese citizen.
Remember: this is the first use of the atomic weapon in front of the entire world in human history. As far as the Japanese were concerned, on August 6, 1945 the sky suddenly lit on fire and destroyed an entire city in seconds. To the mind of 1945, this event was indistinguishable from magic. He cites many examples of military emergencies inciting a quick response but none on the level of total, wholesale destruction like the atomic bomb. Indeed, the atomic bomb was completely unprecedented in all of human history.
It is therefore not completely mysterious why the Supreme Council would initially not know what to do. They would be a) in a state of complete confusion b) in a state of complete defeat and c) trying to shore up the nation after what must have appeared like a supernatural force leveling an entire city and killing many, many thousands of people.
- hencq 13y agoThe article does talk about this though and effectively dismisses your "indistinguishable from magic" argument: " Japan had a nuclear weapons program. Several of the military men mention the fact that it was a nuclear weapon that destroyed Hiroshima in their diaries. General Anami Korechika, minster of war, even went to consult with the head of the Japanese nuclear weapons program on the night of August 7. The idea that Japan's leaders didn't know about nuclear weapons doesn't hold up." As for your " none on the level of total, wholesale destruction like the atomic bomb": " if you graph the number of people killed in all 68 cities bombed in the summer of 1945, you find that Hiroshima was second in terms of civilian deaths. If you chart the number of square miles destroyed, you find that Hiroshima was fourth. If you chart the percentage of the city destroyed, Hiroshima was 17th. Hiroshima was clearly within the parameters of the conventional attacks carried out that summer." In other words, there is nothing to suggest any of the state of shock that you suggest would prevent them from meeting earlier.
- Dylan16807 13y agoCome on, the only way you could tell it wasn't a traditional bomb was it being smaller. Magic? Ridiculous.