What History books ignore

[Gdjjr]

It is troubling to consider, given the questions raised here, that the evidence of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is at the heart of everything we think about nuclear weapons. This event is the bedrock of the case for the importance of nuclear weapons. It is crucial to their unique status, the notion that the normal rules do not apply to nuclear weapons. It is an important measure of nuclear threats: Truman’s threat to visit a “rain of ruin” on Japan was the first explicit nuclear threat. It is key to the aura of enormous power that surrounds the weapons and makes them so important in international relations.

But what are we to make of all those conclusions if the traditional story of Hiroshima is called into doubt? Hiroshima is the center, the point from which all other claims and assertions radiate out. Yet the story we have been telling ourselves seems pretty far removed from the facts. What are we to think about nuclear weapons if this enormous first accomplishment — the miracle of Japan’s sudden surrender — turns out to be a myth?

The Bomb Didn’t Beat Japan … Stalin Did


I don't think I would have used that OT, but it is correct according to this story.

 

[whitehall]

The victors write the history books.

 

[gipper]

The victors write the history books.

Doesn’t make it right.

 

[whitehall]

The victors write the history books.

Doesn’t make it right.

But it makes it history.

 

[ReinyDays]

The article didn't bring up the coup de tate in Japan when the Emperor announced his intentions of surrendering ... those most guilty of war crimes high in the Imperial government were to be removed and tried as demanded by the Allies ... so there still existed the idea of "fighting to the death of each citizen" still floating about in Toyko ... the Japanese had been negotiating this point for months before August 1945 ...

It's easy to sit back today and look at this in perfect clarity and criticize the decision ... but we also need to view this event through the eyes of the day ... the United States had been in "win the war using every means" mode for 3-1/2 years ... that doesn't stop on a dime without unconditional surrender ... we had the weapon, so we used it, and kept using it until the end of the war ... that's what you do with weapons, you use them ...

My father's ship was anchored in Nagasaki Bay a couple weeks after the bombing ... he didn't talk about that at all among his many war stories ... I got his tale second hand from my mother ... it was bad to a whole new level ... at least Iwo Jima was covered with the corpses ...

 

[whitehall]

It's not what you do with weapons (thank God). The victors write the history books so allegations that the Japanese holdouts were so desperate to negotiate terms of surrender that they tried to intercede with Stalin rather than the dupe the democrats chose to secede FDR, are dismissed by pop historians.

 

[gipper]

The victors write the history books.

Doesn’t make it right.

But it makes it history.

I guess, if you consider lies history.

 

[Syriusly]

It is troubling to consider, given the questions raised here, that the evidence of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is at the heart of everything we think about nuclear weapons. This event is the bedrock of the case for the importance of nuclear weapons. It is crucial to their unique status, the notion that the normal rules do not apply to nuclear weapons. It is an important measure of nuclear threats: Truman’s threat to visit a “rain of ruin” on Japan was the first explicit nuclear threat. It is key to the aura of enormous power that surrounds the weapons and makes them so important in international relations.

But what are we to make of all those conclusions if the traditional story of Hiroshima is called into doubt? Hiroshima is the center, the point from which all other claims and assertions radiate out. Yet the story we have been telling ourselves seems pretty far removed from the facts. What are we to think about nuclear weapons if this enormous first accomplishment — the miracle of Japan’s sudden surrender — turns out to be a myth?

The Bomb Didn’t Beat Japan … Stalin Did


I don't think I would have used that OT, but it is correct according to this story.

I wonder after all of this time why there are those who just are determined to give the Communists credit for beating Japan.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Looks like he does,lol