LogFAQs > #977024548

Dark_Arbron posted...

Regarding the atomic bombings, theres tons of conflicting claims there too. I was told after the first one Japan taunted the US by saying they only had one of those. Other people say they gave no response. Other other people say they were on the verge of surrender already and the second bombing (and even the first) was unnecessary and should have been used on military targets anyway.

The problem here is who the goddamn hell am I supposed to trust?

From my understanding - and I had to write about this in a low level university class, specifically on whether the bombings were justified - I'm not aware of Japan specifically telling the US that they believed the US didn't have another atomic bomb, but they *did* believe it. Even after Nagasaki, they believed the US wouldn't have many more - and this was correct; the US had no more at the time, could've had one more in a couple of weeks, and an average of 3 a month after that. Likewise, the fact that Japan might think that, was absolutely a factor in the US's decision to drop a second one.

Japan was certianly considering surrender at that time, but it was far from certian. I believe what really changed the course here was the Soviet Union breaking neutrality and declaring war on Japan. This happened after Hiroshima but before Nagasaki. The meeting at which the decision was made, occurred on the same day as Nagasaki, after the bombing happened but before the participants were aware of it. Hiroshima could very well have been a factor; but they would almost certianly have surrendered even if a second nuke hadn't been dropped. Whether they would've surrendered without the first one, just on the general state of their military by that point and the Soviets breaking neutrality, is likely impossible to say; let alone whether the US could possibly have known whether surrender would've occurred without it. As is whether the US could possibly have known that Nagasaki (or Kokura, as originally intended) would ultimately have no bearing on whether Japan surrendered or not.

The legitimacy of the targets, as opposed to demonstration or purely military targets, is a very different matter. However, that distinction had disappeared long before the nukes; either atomic bombing as a single event wasn't even the most destructive or fatal bombing raid against Japan in WW2 (that would be Operation Meetinghouse, a firebomb raid on Tokyo).

As for who you can ultimately trust? No one really; we can look at what's most likely to be true, but I doubt a single person alive - even if they were alive and in a position of authority at the time - knows the full truth. Even those who mean to be truthful can still be wrong.