Because I know we're all historians here and all have a fascination with all things kablowie, I thought you guys might enjoy this article on an alternate reason as to why Japan surrendered at the end of WWII.
Why did Japan surrender?
Sixty-six years ago, we dropped a nuclear bomb on Hiroshima. Now, some historians say that’s not what ended the war. Tsuyoshi Hasegawa - a highly respected historian at the University of California, Santa Barbara - has marshaled compelling evidence that it was the Soviet entry into the Pacific conflict, not Hiroshima and Nagasaki, that forced Japan’s surrender. His interpretation could force a new accounting of the moral meaning of the atomic attack. It also raises provocative questions about nuclear deterrence, a foundation stone of military strategy in the postwar period.
Link provided by Eva.
"Why did Japan surrender?"
-
Nicephorus
- Bulldrekker
- Posts: 213
- Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 2:23 pm
I've only read the first page but this is nothing new. Would you rather be occupied by Americans or Soviets? Russia has st kept some of the islandsill occupied at the end.
I don't know about the original book but the article appears to be setting up an excluded middle. It was likely that both factors affected the decision, along with destroyed infrastructure, destroyed navy, and exhausted population.
I don't know about the original book but the article appears to be setting up an excluded middle. It was likely that both factors affected the decision, along with destroyed infrastructure, destroyed navy, and exhausted population.
Sorry. I meant "psychometric analysis" in the Biblical sense. - Tip Wilkin.
The theory seems interesting, if not wholly supported by sufficient evidence, but this particular article draws a number of conclusions from it which aren't supported by anything, like the idea that nuclear deterrence now has no logical support, because the Japanese didn't give up on account of the bomb: but that's an immediate reaction to an all-new weapon, which has now been made significantly more powerful. In essence, Japan can't act as a test case for deterrence, because they couldn't have any idea what the long-term effects of the bomb were, and they were dealing with little baby bomblets, anyway.
The real causes of the surrender are complex and definitely not single-faceted, but it's interesting to see another facet more completely exposed. But this particular article seems to have a narrative it would like to put forth, in absence of support from the research on which it's based.
The real causes of the surrender are complex and definitely not single-faceted, but it's interesting to see another facet more completely exposed. But this particular article seems to have a narrative it would like to put forth, in absence of support from the research on which it's based.