You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
c) I think everyone can agree that an American land invasion would have been bad, even if the details are debatable. Framing it as "two bombs versus invasion" does not, however, incapsulate the options on the table at the time.http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2015/08/03/were-there-alternatives-to-the-atomic-bombings/ …
c2) And that framing — "2 bombs on 2 cities in 3 days OR invasion" — was created by people who wanted, in the postwar, to justify the bombing. They felt the need to do that because several military leaders, like Eisenhower and Leahy, went on the record saying it was unnecessary.
d) You can say it's Cold War propaganda (and hey, what wasn't, at some point?) but again, the people saying it wasn't necessary in the 1940s and 1950s were not Communists. They were Republicans and military leaders. For what it's worth. The politics have shifted, obviously.
e) Lastly, I am not actually saying (in my thread) that the bombs were unnecessary (I think Nagasaki probably was, but Hiroshima is unclear), and I'm not saying they were just used to scare Stalin (for Byrnes in particular, that was explicitly a motivation, but one of several).
e2) I think that interpretation — the "we knew we didn't have to use it, and we used it just to scare the Soviets" — is also incorrect. For whatever it is worth. Again, I think the reality is complicated and doesn't fit into simple political parables.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
