9. It is essentially coincidental that two factories that produced munitions happened to be at the northern and southern fringes of the blast zone. The geography of the city also meant that, unlike Hiroshima, it was still functional (in the large "lower" half) after the bombing.
-
-
Historians *opinions are nothing without the historical record to back up their claims. Especially historians that refuse to admit they don't have the evidence to back up their biased claims. What would you have done? Sent tens of 1000's of allied soldiers to their deaths?
-
Duuude I've directed you to sources with LOTS of citations. Even sent you a US gov't report from 1945 that concluded bombs AND invasion weren't necessary to end the war. Not much else one can do on Twitter. You're being silly, now.
-
BUT if you want to learn about the potential "alternatives" — I've written up a nice survey of them:http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2015/08/03/were-there-alternatives-to-the-atomic-bombings/ …
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I'm obviously referring to *modern historians opinions (like yours) concerning a subject they have a completely biased view of. You're being disingenuous here.
-
- studies subject for 5 days, coincidentally has conclusion that fits with present-day politics = non-biased - studies subject for +15 years, concludes that issue is complicated and difficult to come to conclusions about, cites many sourcs = biased Riiight.
-
But you're right. I am being disingenuous. It's clear that — as it looked from the outset — you've no interest in actually learning about this. And worst of all... you've **bored** me. So, I'm done with this discussion. Take care, and good luck.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.