Hat tip to @rfmwilliams through whom I found the thread (also generally a great milhist follow, by the by).
Näytä tämä ketju
The use of the atomic bombs has come up here on twitter and the blog and I demur giving a strong answer because it is so complex, so this is a great thread illustrating that complexity. If you think you have a simple answer to the question, it is probably because you are wrong.https://twitter.com/wc_quinn/status/1458891500344029189 …
-
-
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
-
-
I think one can come away from reading on this topic and surmise that, yes, it’s super complicated but maybe you’re more convinced by one or the other. But just outright coming down hard on one opinion and demonizing anyone who doesn’t see it your way is ahistorical imo
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
-
-
The explanation I was told was most likely (in my undergrad class, so a lot of simplification is expected) is that they were facing internal political pressure and wanted the war to end in unconditional surrender as soon as possible whatever it took.
-
But we were definitely told that it was complicated and the true reasons are impossible to know for certain, and also that scaring the soviets may have been part of it.
- Näytä vastaukset
Uusi keskustelu -
-
-
I’m sure you have a lot already planned for the blog, but when/if you do a breakdown of Hearts of Iron IV, do you anticipate covering the way it treats nuclear weapons and if it comes down on a side of the argument about the importance of them to the end of WWII?
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
-
-
I have a simple answer! "Go listen to this complex answer." (Technically, *my* answer is simple!)https://youtu.be/RCRTgtpC-Go
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
-
-
seems to me that the multiplicity of explanations on offer could easily be a consequence of early Cold Warriors' desire to obfuscate the unsavory realpolitik of the early postwar period, which was full of unsavory ideological Faustian bargains on both sides of the Iron Curtain
-
the Faustian bargain in this case being that the Japanese regime (whose conduct in China involved atrocities easily on par with the Holocaust) was given a sweetheart deal to surrender to the Americans quickly instead of waiting for a Soviet invasion and a Germany-style partition
Keskustelun loppu
Uusi keskustelu -
-
-
My simple answer is that they dropped it because they had it, not for any purpose; the people who dropped it didn’t know what it was, save that it was a powerful weapon, like firebombs. We weren’t trying to demonstrate it to the Japanese or the USSR; we didn’t know what “it” was
-
They did Trinity. I’ll concede that they really had no idea how (in)effective aerial bombing was c. 1945. Spectacular events like the bombing of Tokyo or Dresden weren’t the norm, so applying the results of Trinity to a city wasn’t really possible. Lots of work went into BDA
Keskustelun loppu
Uusi keskustelu -
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.