Kasz216 said:
As for Nagasaki. The cabinent's decision on whether to surrender or not was deadlocked... this includes after Nagasaki it was 50-50. The Empeoror forced a decision towards surrender, and even then there was a military uprising attempting to impose martial law and prevent all officials from trying to make peace. Without Nagasaki isn't reasonable to think it wouldn't of been 50-50? Keep in mind as well, that surrender was predicated on the condition that the empeoror be kept in place in Japan... a position the Russians, Chinese and others weren't willing to accept. The emperor was walking a tightrope avoiding becoming a imprisoned figurehead who was replaced by a military coup. Had Korechika Anami decided on a coup (which he considered) he would of been successful. |
Yeah Dresden was largely overestimated. It was in fact not the worst firestorm the RAF created (I think Hamburg was worse?) but it was the least necessary as far as direct military consequences go - like Hiroshima it was a vulgar display of power, meant largely to show the Germans how complete their dominance over air was and the size of the bombing raids they could muster.
Also the Japanese were already close to capitulation before Nagasaki from what I understand. The thing about the Japanese of that era was that they were very very against surrendering, it was against their code of honour. The realists had already decided upon surrender after Hiroshima and the people who were against surrender after Hiroshima didn't have their minds changed by Nagasaki.
As far as I can see Nagasaki was little more than a further test of atomic weaponry.
