| bazmeistergen said: a) I'm aware they left the city untouched so they could measure the power of the bomb. My point is if the place was *such* an important base they would have destroyed it earlier. b) I'll get back to you when I've got proper sources (rather than the internet) I have some decent revisionist accounts at work - Perhaps Lafeber will have some direct references. c) End doesn't justify the means. An invasion would have killed more people. I'm doubting it was an invasion that was necessary, however. The policy-makers, of course, had different ideas and didn't take Japanese overtures seriously. Why would they? They knew what they had up there sleeves and wanted the type of surrender that only hyper-annihilation could give them. |
a) I agree Hiroshima was not as important.
b) & C) I can't argue without any evidence presented to me.
What I know is that the A-bomb was dropped, and then the Japanese surrendered. At that point the Allies were getting ready to invade Japan (Truman even told the Japanese so after they dropped the first A-bomb) and that was a much more costly option.
In this case, the end kinda does justify the bombs. A little. The war was over. A pro-longed war would have been much more costly on Japan. *is referring back to the Communist/Capitalist thing*
Tag (Courtesy of Fkusumot) "If I'm posting in this thread then it's probally a spam thread."
