Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

caraher

(6,357 posts)
6. Actually, there's plenty of evidence the bombs didn't shorten the war noticeably
Sun Jan 13, 2013, 04:27 AM
Jan 2013

At essentially the same time, the Soviets invaded Manchuria, which may have made an even bigger impression on Tokyo's generals. There's actually a lot of evidence that Japan wouldn't have lasted more than a few months more. That case is part of the work I mentioned above, notably in the Gar Alperovitz book "The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb."

There are historians on both sides of the argument, but there are some very strong arguments for a quick collapse without the bomb - very different from the absence of "any evidence." Japanese diplomats had been trying to initiate a surrender dialog through intermediaries (unfortunately for them, one of them was the Soviet Union; they apparently didn't realize Stalin fully intended to follow through on his promise to the western Allies to attack Japan 3 months after Germany's surrender).

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Editorials & Other Articles»The Real Reason America U...»Reply #6