(One can ask: Why did the CIA do this? Why doesn't it fix it? I suspect incompetence more than malfeasance, but we'll get to the motivations of why people invoke the "warning" in a moment.)
Show this thread
-
The people making the leaflet REWROTE the leaflet to include the info about the Soviet invasion, adding more time.pic.twitter.com/vUAW3ZsPu4
Show this thread
All of this added up to Nagasaki not receiving any warning leaflets until AFTER the atomic bomb had been dropped on it (early August 9th). In fact it got the leaflets *a day after it was bombed*.pic.twitter.com/t7L8JZKt2s
-
-
So they weren't warned with leaflets. The last refuge of the "they were warned" crowd is "well, didn't Truman warn them in the Potsdam Declaration?" Not really — it said, we want unconditional surrender, and the alternative was "prompt and utter destruction."
Show this thread -
Is that a veiled reference to the atomic bomb? Probably. But it is one that only makes sense after you know the atomic bomb exists — which was kept a secret. It's not a warning if you can't understand it until AFTER the event you are being warned against.
Show this thread -
(And being promised "destruction" would not have raised eyebrows in Japan — the US had already been engaged in a campaign of systematically firebombing Japanese cities, so "destruction" was already a way of life.)pic.twitter.com/SgmjZdUnN9
Show this thread -
The US planners HAD considered warning Japan about the atomic bomb, and had rejected the idea. They deliberately kept it secret for reasons both tactical (avoid the bombing planes being targeted) and psychological (they hoped the "shock" would dislodge Japan's high command).
Show this thread -
Which is to say, the idea that the cities were warned doesn't even make much sense of the face of it. It's not something that Groves, Truman, Tibbets, or anyone else connected to the bombing program ever claimed. So why are do so many people claim it today?
Show this thread -
The answer is pretty clear to me: they think it lessens the moral difficulty of defending the bombing. If we warned them, and they didn't surrender or evacuate, then it's really their fault they died, not ours, right?
Show this thread -
This is bad reasoning on every front. If Bin Laden had said, "I'm going to attack major American cities," and then he did it — would we have said, "well, he warned us"? No, of course not. It's an absurd notion. Even if the warning was very specific, it still doesn't absolve.
Show this thread -
The fact that there was no warning in the case of Hiroshima/Nagasaki just makes this argument all the more ridiculous. It'd bad reasoning even if it HAD happened — but it DIDN'T happen. Which makes it something of a farce.
Show this thread -
I always tell people who spout this: look, one CAN make arguments in favor of the Hiroshima bombing (and Nagasaki, too, but it gets harder). All arguments for and against are contentious, but they can be made. But don't base your argument on something that 100% didn't happen!
Show this thread -
(And before people get on me: I know there are other myths/spin/lies/misconceptions, including big ones. But this is the one that bugs me the most, because it 100% didn't happen. There's no real room for interpretive dispute here — it's just false.) /THREAD
Show this thread -
I meant to add this, too, but work internet went down: I've written all this up before, some time back. The psychological warfare document from 1946 is linked in the post as a PDF; I got it from the Manhattan Project files in the National Archives. See:http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2013/04/26/a-day-too-late/ …
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Thank you Alex. Is this available on your blog. Please post it there
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.