- gamertag: [none]
- user homepage:
Posted by: I give tuggers
Posted by: The Random
Posted by: I give tuggers
Posted by: The Random
Posted by: I give tuggers
Yep.
It wasn't a "necessary evil" at all. And people have this idea that Japan would've never given up, which is far from true.
The reality is that the US bombing had more to do with flexing muscle and testing their new toy than ending the war.[/quote]
Oh goodness, you don't really believe that do you? It's better than excepting whatever textbook explanation was given to me.
A real historian questions and evaluates, and doesn't just except whatever reasoning is given to them.
Besides, it's a piss poor excuse to say the only way to stop a country is to bomb them. Especially when they were considering conceding anyway.
*Accepting
I gather from your posts that you are very confused with what reasoning went behind America's decision to use atomic weapons near the end of the war.
Here, educate yourself.
You're missing my point entirely. I didn't say the U.S. wasn't justified in the use of the weapons. I was saying that there is more to it than it just being a last resort weapon.
Also, excuse my spelling error.
Excused.
Posted by: I give tuggers
It wasn't a "necessary evil" at all. And people have this idea that Japan would've never given up, which is far from true.
The reality is that the US bombing had more to do with flexing muscle and testing their new toy than ending the war.
This is what led me to believe that you are confused, and it contradicts what you just wrote.Fair enough. Frankly, I know very little about the Pacific theater, and I've always been more interested in Europe.
But the fact is, as much justification as there is for the bombing, there is just as much the likelihood that there was more to it than just ending the war. The U.S. and the USSR were already in a race to build atomic weapons. Is it not at least somewhat feasible that the U.S. wanted to demonstrate the capabilities they had? I don't know. I'm not trying to be a conspiracy theorist or anything like that. I understand and agree with SOME of the reasoning behind the bombing. My only point is, you can't take what is written in history books at face value all the time. You have to infer and consider the other factors that play into events.
It's not always as simple as, "All of Japan was fanatical, every man, woman and child would've fought to defend their country, and there was no other option than to nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki". From what I've read, Japan was considering surrender, but the whole diplomatic situation was a mess and they didn't respond when the U.S. gave then warning.