4 ms·

>"Think for a minute about what this essay is asking "What if action X did not end the war in the Pacific?" I think it was addressing the overall idea of specu

• deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
• msvan 13y ago
  Which is essentially dismissing the entire subject of history. How can arguing about things that happened seventy years ago not be speculation? History is not hard science. We speculate, we argue, but we never reach perfect certainty.
• parennoob 13y ago
  What meaning of speculate do you mean? There are two that are nearly the opposite of each other (making this an almost-Janus word): 1. To meditate on a subject; reflect. 2. To engage in a course of reasoning often based on inconclusive evidence. If you mean 2., the article doesn't do anything of the sort. It lays out specific pieces of evidence based on observed historical fact and draws specific conclusions from them. On the other hand, the top-level comment above is pretty vague in its rebuttal.
  • dspeyer 13y ago
    In talking about causality, the article makes two counterfactual claims: had the Soviets not invaded Manchuria, Japan would not have surrendered and had the bombs not been dropped, Japan would have surrendered. (In my opinion, the first claim is well-defended, the second less so). Since the bombs were dropped and the Soviets did invade, any discussion of these possibilities is a little speculative.
    • gruseom 13y ago
      This seems reasonable—thanks. Can you quote where the article actually claims those two things? I'm curious, and I don't disbelieve you, but I really don't want to have to go back and comb through the whole thing again :)
      • montagg 13y ago
        This section, primarily, argues that the atomic bomb created a political out for the Japanese government: > Attributing the end of the war to the atomic bomb served Japan's interests in multiple ways. But it also served U.S. interests. If the Bomb won the war, then the perception of U.S. military power would be enhanced, U.S. diplomatic influence in Asia and around the world would increase, and U.S. security would be strengthened. The $2 billion spent to build it would not have been wasted. If, on the other hand, the Soviet entry into the war was what caused Japan to surrender, then the Soviets could claim that they were able to do in four days what the United States was unable to do in four years, and the perception of Soviet military power and Soviet diplomatic influence would be enhanced. And once the Cold War was underway, asserting that the Soviet entry had been the decisive factor would have been tantamount to giving aid and comfort to the enemy. It basically argues, yeah, both Stalin AND the bomb likely contributed to a surrender. This part is not cited as well, however. It relies on implication based on the dissonance between records before the surrender and statements by the Japanese government after the surrender.
        • gruseom 13y ago
          Sure, but that passage is about the political uses of the causal argument that happened to win (and that the OP thinks is incorrect). It makes no counterfactual claims. dspeyer's point is a good one if (but only if) the article actually does make the two claims he mentioned. Does it? I don't remember.