Guy Fawkes
The voice of treason
- Sep 29, 2007
- 8,297
This is the official story told by history and I think we all know it.
I was questioning it as a valid reason for using that much force, twice.
It hasn't been used since in hostilities between countries, even those where one side has nuclear weapons.
Putin has come out and brought up America's awful history and said he very much doubts that Russia would ever had done the same thing. In my view the cold war was Russia arming accordingly to protect themselves against America.
Who forced Japan to fight on between the 1st and 2nd bombs? There were 3 days between missions so why didn't they surrender straight after it became clear just how devastating the bombing was and that the US had already made it public that they would be releasing more of the devices in a bid to end the war?
If they hadn't dropped the 2nd one, would Japan have still surrendered at that point in history or fought on.
What is there apart from modern thinking and modern arguments to suggest that they would have laid down their arms ? especially when their culture at the time had been about surrender being a disgrace and that they should die rather than being captured, with evidence as a suggestion of proof in the form of officers who would commit Harikari (like at the Battle of Midway) even if they weren't captured but failed in their mission / goal, that civilians would commit suicide rather than live under foreign rule and soldiers would often kill themselves rather than being captured (Iwo Jima, etc)
They had been brainwashed into a certain way of thinking and it would take something this devastating to try to get them to change their thinking / beliefs.