this would one of those revisionist statements.
Doesn't matter.
When do you think Japan was going to surrender?
150k civilians died during the battle of Okinawa that summer. Here's Oki on a map in comparison to the size of the main island (s):
Japan had no interest in surrendering at any point until the emperor made his first ever public appearance calling for an end to the war. Even the warmongers in charge couldn’t go against the emperor speaking to the public for the first time in history.
It's very doubtful that the Russians would have been able to seriously gain a foothold in Japan with how minimal their sealift capabilities were, even after the US lent them ships. That was also months, if not closer to a year away. All at a time when Japan was entering famine.
Ummm.... It's pretty much consensus among historians and scholars despite political leanings.
jacobin.com
geopoliticaleconomy.com
I don't hear a lot of talk that Hiroshima was the worst thing to happen to humanity. Heck, the fire bombing of Tokyo actually killed more people in one night than either of the two atomic bombs.Watching 'Three Body Problem.' No spoilers:
Big expensive project is going on and one of the characters said something to the effect of 'the last time smart people got in the room and had unlimited funds, they gave us HIROSHIMA!'
As if it's the big bad thing that all of humanity has done. You hear it quite frequently- with all the historical revisionism that's going on- that Hiroshima was some gigantic atrocity. It was not.
WWII was TOTAL WAR. None of us in our times of peace have any idea. And if the situation arose again, where the entire world was in play, are these soft headed historically ignorant people saying that we would not repeat the action to save potentially millions of lives-- even those of the enemy?
It's ridiculous.
An assault on Japan proper would likely have resulted in, depending on who you ask, an additional 3M to 30M casualties. It was the correct choice.
There's no consensus among historians that Japan was about to surrender, and there were significant deal breakers between the US position and Japanese position in surrendering. Most of the stuff you're citing isn't actually contemporary evidence, and a lot of post-event hindsight.Ummm.... It's pretty much consensus among historians and scholars despite political leanings.
The Atomic Bombings of Japan Were Based on Lies
On the 78th anniversary of the atomic bombings of Japan, we should remember that deploying the bomb wasn’t necessary to win the war. US policymakers were aware of this fact, yet they pressed on, thereby authoring the atrocity that launched the nuclear age.
Atomic bombing of Japan was not necessary to end WWII. US gov't documents admit it - Geopolitical Economy Report
US government documents admit atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not necessary to end WWII. Japan was on verge of surrendering. Nuclear attack targeted Soviet Union, starting Cold War
it's a war, and that WAS the demonstration
the timing was off, not enough time was left to brew, a fight or flight moment, and in the middle of war, it's fight fight fight. Think of september 11 or some large terror attack. It takes a bit of time for the whole gravity of the situation to spread and soak into people's souls. Back then, they didnt even have internet, would have taken longer to fully comprehend.
Thread worthy or not, its true, though. We would've had to take over the country if not for the big bomb.
