sales2099 said:
Ckmlb1 said:
sales2099 said:
Ckmlb1 said:
sales2099 said:
Ya......that is just wrong.
Japan had something called honor and didn't believe in surrender.
But when the enemy has a weapon that destroys 2 of your cities in one moment........you tend to rethink your position on continuing the war. |
86 cities had already been partially or mostly wiped out with regular air strikes before the atom bombs were ever used.
|
Well Japan historically refused to surrender after the first atom bomb......proving this threads theory wrong. They should have saw an out when it first happened but chose to carry on.
Only after the second strike in nagasaki did Japan finally give up.
86 cities......which costed many Allied lives, and money, equipment, but mostly time. This strategy just needed a single pilot and a single plane, and the entire cities became destoryed in less then a minute. This was a game changer and this is why the war ended.
|
America had all the time in the world compared to Japan, the Japanese didn't after the Soviet Union joined the war it was a short timeline to make decisions. There's another perspective that would argue that because they didn't surrender after the first atom bomb that would mean it didn't make a difference to them whether it was an atomic strike or a conventional strike.
|
And to that I say they simply had an obsession with honor, which is why they didn't surrender right away.
When your faced with a semmingly impossible technology that can level cities instantly, honor only goes so far. This whole thread is just a conspiracy theory and its upsetting that if enough time goes by, young generations that obviously didn't live in that era, can cook up whatever perspectives they can think of rather then stick to the cold facts.
Guess it boils down to a rebellious spirit of "not believing everything you hear/read".
|
There's also a school of thought that believes that the victors of wars are the ones that write the history that is supposedly 'cold hard facts' later on. The article isn't a conspiracy theory, the writer puts forward several points to support his argument, he doesn't make anything up. You can claim that the is wrong and present different points but how is this a conspiracy theory?
