Geniuses- why didn’t they surrender on the day of the bombing or the day after? Lol.
They were willing to fight on. Until The Red Army was ready to invade from behind.
This is very very simple. If it was the bomb, they’d have surrendered that very day.
But they didn’t until ANOTHER EVENT HAPPENED. That was the decisive event.
The nuclear bombings weren’t even the largest cause of physical damage to Japan. Conventional bombings were. Just give it up. You are all indoctrinated to believe that nukes are worse than what they really are.
Now let’s forget your dumb ad hoc arguments and look at history.
The Russian invasion and the 2nd bomb both happened on August 9th. What did the Japanese cabinet debate all day on August 9th? Surrender. It was already on the table from the Potsdam Declaration. they met several times, through midnight into August 10th, and that’s when they first decided to conditionally surrender. They allies were notified of this in the morning hours of the 10th.
Just read up on it to get your facts straight before you keep embarrassing yourself. Please. continually mentioning the surrender ceremony on September 2nd like nothing happened before that is fucking embarrassing.
You do realize this was 80 years ago right? There was very little real-time information.
And last I checked, nuclear explosions generally wipe out communications equipment. You’re saying the nukes didn’t play a MAJOR part of Japanese surrender because they announced a surrender that was - in your mind - 96 hours later than your arbitrary timeline?
You’re getting owned here GSC. Man up and just admit you overstepped here.
I’m obviously not going to convince you here. You clearly believe that two bombs that killed over 200,000 people had no weight in terms of Japan deciding to surrender.
If that were the case, why then did they not try to continue fighting even after they were aware of a western advance?
I’ll caveat this that I’m far from an expert in this area, but in the information I’ve read on the topic, the Japanese were culturally against surrender. They would commit suicide before surrender and fight to the death.
The leader of Japan at the time didn’t want to surrender but eventually felt that the war was not winnable. There were definitely folks that felt that they could withstand multiple nukes and keep going. Ultimately, in pretty short order they realized the war was not winnable and that was the end of the war.
I will agree with those that are saying the nukes were devastating. It’s not just the horrific nature at the epicenter but also the long term effects. Not sure how traditional bombs are worse than that.
This was the reasoning to use the bombs in the first place.
Almost rhetoric. Of course he didn’t want to surrender. It was the bombs that made them realize this.
Again, there were holdouts up to the 80s. How’s this relevant? A random guy in the jungle doesn’t make policy
You’re not sure how a traditional bomb is different than a nuclear weapon?
Are we really talking about this? GSC believes almost anything and is wrong nearly 100% of the time. Again, this is the guy who thinks the universe revolves around the earth, a concept disputed since 500 BCE. Is this fucking real? The level of willful ignorance on the right is a sight to behold. When I brought up furries in schools, you all bought it hook, line and sinker.
There really is a mental deficiency in the conservative movement. Wow.
Look at the facts. The United States bombed 68 cities in the summer of 1945. If you graph the number of people killed in all 68 of those attacks, you imagine that Hiroshima is off the charts, because that’s the way it’s usually presented. In fact, Hiroshima is second. Tokyo, a conventional attack, is first in the number killed. If you graph the number of square miles destroyed, Hiroshima is sixth. If you graph the percentage of the city destroyed, Hiroshima is 17th.
If that were the case they’d have quit after Tokyo 51.
Face it guys…. You have no idea what you’re talking about.
Actually, I have a degree in history and took 2 graduate level classes on WW2 from a military strategy professor who previously was from West Point. But, you strike me as the type of cat with no formal education who thinks formal education is for the birds. Again, you think you’re more intelligent than 2500 years of astronomy and physics and yet are less than an average 2nd grader.
Look at this guy changing arguments again. Embarrassing is right.
I’m mentioning the invasion to be completely forthcoming. To make no attempt at trickery (like you are). And I’m being very specific with dates because you keep talking about an invasion happening after the bombing and weeks later and other nonsense. The surrender happened before the majority of the invasion.
But your idiotic argument is A + B = A. The Russian invasion + the bombs = Not the bombs.
The truth is, both the Russian invasion and the bomb were factors in the surrender. It’s simplistic to say “Japan surrendered because of the bomb” but not wholly inaccurate. The US were talking about nuking Tokyo next, after all. It’s also simplistic to say “Japan surrendered because of the Soviet invasion” but not wholly inaccurate. The truth is they were both huge factors in the surrender, among others (like Japan’s industrial output).
Warden, Indiana is agreeing with us. You misunderstand his statement. He says he doesn’t see how traditional bombs could be worse, because he agrees that nuclear bombs are much worse.