LogFAQs > #914055935

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, Database 4 ( 07.23.2018-12.31.2018 ), DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Was the atomic bombing of Japan justified?
Darkman124 12/13/18 11:33:51 AM #37:	Omnislasher posted... Japan was ready to surrender anyway. Top U.S. officials fully knew this. The bombs were a message to the soviets; a political decision, not a military one. Gar Alperovitz is one such historian thats done extensive work on this, including writing a book. Here you can see him briefly outline some of the facts in a video: primary source data disagrees with his work. this is a transcript of the first go-seidan, in which the high council still was unwilling to surrender even after hiroshima, and the emperor had to issue a unilateral decision, essentially breaking the constitution of the nation. https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb525-The-Atomic-Bomb-and-the-End-of-World-War-II/documents/075.pdf unless you think a japanese surrender was acceptable without forced disarmament, trial of war criminals, or occupation, the as-present conditions of the war had not compelled japan to a surrender that the allies could accept. i'm familiar with the opposing argument on the subject, and they tend to emphasize the post-hiroshima offer that only included the single term that the imperial house would not be impacted. that one has merit, an an end to the war without the nagasaki bombing may well have been viable, considering that despite requiring unconditional surrender, we didn't alter the imperial house. whether we still could have developed a new constitution in which its power was dramatically scaled back, that is hard to say. history is hard to rewrite accurately. --- And when the hourglass has run out, eternity asks you about only one thing: whether you have lived in despair or not. <cite>Darkman124 posted [p:914055935] in Was the at... [t:77298109]...</cite> <quote><cite>Omnislasher posted...</cite> <quote>Japan was ready to surrender anyway. Top U.S. officials fully knew this. The bombs were a message to the soviets; a political decision, not a military one. Gar Alperovitz is one such historian thats done extensive work on this, including writing a book. Here you can see him briefly outline some of the facts in a video: </quote> primary source data disagrees with his work. this is a transcript of the first go-seidan, in which the high council still was unwilling to surrender even after hiroshima, and the emperor had to issue a unilateral decision, essentially breaking the constitution of the nation. https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb525-The-Atomic-Bomb-and-the-End-of-World-War-II/documents/075.pdf unless you think a japanese surrender was acceptable without forced disarmament, trial of war criminals, or occupation, the as-present conditions of the war had not compelled japan to a surrender that the allies could accept. i'm familiar with the opposing argument on the subject, and they tend to emphasize the post-hiroshima offer that only included the single term that the imperial house would not be impacted. that one has merit, an an end to the war without the nagasaki bombing may well have been viable, considering that despite requiring unconditional surrender, we didn't alter the imperial house. whether we still could have developed a new constitution in which its power was dramatically scaled back, that is hard to say. history is hard to rewrite accurately. --- And when the hourglass has run out, eternity asks you about only one thing: whether you have lived in despair or not.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1