For years the argument has been that these two bombings were necessary to end the war based upon the idea that the Japanese would not surrender in a conventional war.
This is an article that argues that Japan was probably going to surrender anyway, and that the bombings were not needed - thus putting forward the idea that these bombings were, in fact, a war crime.
I'm not certain either way, but anyone who bases argument on evidence (as these historians do) should be listened to.
This is an article that argues that Japan was probably going to surrender anyway, and that the bombings were not needed - thus putting forward the idea that these bombings were, in fact, a war crime.
I'm not certain either way, but anyone who bases argument on evidence (as these historians do) should be listened to.
2 comments:
Who can say for certain what anyone "would have done"?
Continued conventional warfare would have been very terrible as well. For example, the fire-bombing of Tokyo in 1945 resulted in 80,000-100,000 casualties - more than Hiroshima.
Interesting discussion in the comments. They historians haven't presented any "facts" really - they've just asserted that Japan would have surrendered anyway once Russian invaded Manchuria. But how can anyone know? The other salient point, as someone pointed out, is that Russia didn't actually invade until after the first bomb was dropped.
Post a Comment