Weren’t the nukes also dropped because Japan’s highest-level commanders were dead-set on fighting more or less to the end, which would have caused horrific loss of life on both sides?
Also, I don’t remember reading this theory, but I would guess some of those commanders also felt like something ‘magical’ might happen to save the motherland, hearkening back to Kame Kaze’s taifuns that saved Nippon from Mongol invasion on two occasions, centuries earlier.
That is the standard argument we’re given, yes: that it would ultimately save lives compared to a conventional war. You can find dissenting views from Noam Chomsky & Michael Parenti & Howard Zinn & others, including the US government’s own analysis, if you care to.
There’s also the ‘Ask Historians’ analysis, which posits that there were at least three major ideas about how to handle a nuclear bombing entertained between the principles deciding.
While it’s tempting to look at the situation in retrospect and agree with the report that ‘yes obviously there wasn’t a need to bomb to elicit a surrender’ that nevertheless doesn’t mean that the majority of the deciders were fully on board with that understanding & approach, unlike Ike.
Without doing a deep dive, the AH approach makes about the most sense to me and seems consistent with history, in which there was a level of uncertainty and multiple players & arguments going in to the final decision.
Btw, that first link barely mentions the matter, and the second link is far too subjective to be of much use, far as I can tell.
Weren’t the nukes also dropped because Japan’s highest-level commanders were dead-set on fighting more or less to the end, which would have caused horrific loss of life on both sides?
Also, I don’t remember reading this theory, but I would guess some of those commanders also felt like something ‘magical’ might happen to save the motherland, hearkening back to Kame Kaze’s taifuns that saved Nippon from Mongol invasion on two occasions, centuries earlier.
@[email protected]
That is the standard argument we’re given, yes: that it would ultimately save lives compared to a conventional war. You can find dissenting views from Noam Chomsky & Michael Parenti & Howard Zinn & others, including the US government’s own analysis, if you care to.
There’s also the ‘Ask Historians’ analysis, which posits that there were at least three major ideas about how to handle a nuclear bombing entertained between the principles deciding.
While it’s tempting to look at the situation in retrospect and agree with the report that ‘yes obviously there wasn’t a need to bomb to elicit a surrender’ that nevertheless doesn’t mean that the majority of the deciders were fully on board with that understanding & approach, unlike Ike.
Without doing a deep dive, the AH approach makes about the most sense to me and seems consistent with history, in which there was a level of uncertainty and multiple players & arguments going in to the final decision.
Btw, that first link barely mentions the matter, and the second link is far too subjective to be of much use, far as I can tell.