Alex WellersteinVerified account

There is no evidence that the Nagasaki bombing played any actual role in the decision to surrender, as an aside. Hiroshima — maybe. But most historians agree Nagasaki didn't affect things in any significant way, and was probably unnecessary.

The Jewel Voice Broadcast lists a lot of things — but indeed, does list the bomb. But one does not take official pronounces at face value; citing a new, "cruel" weapon as the reason to surrender is better than citing a fear of the USSR, if you are looking to save face.

I will read it. But for the record, I'm not interested in "how historians think about this", I'm interested in what the historical record shows as fact, or fails to show in support of your claims.

Ah, but you see: historians are the ones who read (and write!) the "historical record." So you've got yourself in a bind there. It's not as easy as just pointing to a document and saying, "here is the history!" It's a tough (but fun) job to sort out these things.

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.