Rath said:
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. |
They really weren't. I'd suggest going back and reading some on it, or even just the wikipedia page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan
They really weren't willing to surrender, the generals themselves with any less more doubt in their defeat would of taken over and joined the coup. (or more likely staged their own.)








