(no subject)

Thomas Bitterman · 19 Jan 2011, 21:44 · from 2011-January.txt.gz

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: tom at bitterman.net (Thomas Bitterman)
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 16:44:36 -0500
Subject: (urth) (no subject)
In-Reply-To: <4D374CF1.5090200 at gmail.com>
References: <SNT123-W49896C0F60C847C0CFEAFDCFF60 at phx.gbl>
	<4D374CF1.5090200 at gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=4uwRmAq_5wVx=Wq0rQtq-xnEOg+ZwkqObHG0m at mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 3:43 PM, James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> Thomas Bitterman-
>
> It is entirely possible that the atomic bombs were not the cause of
> Japanese surrender.  Some Japanese principals have denied that the bombs
> were a major factor, citing instead the Russian invasion. In any case,
> invasion wasn't the only other option - a blockade along with continued
> bombing was also an option, and would have almost certainly succeeded
> (albeit more slowly).
>
>
> As in North Korea?
>

Japan was not connected to a much larger country that was actively
supporting it.  Also, we have not continued bombing North Korea in the
manner we would have continued bombing Japan in the scenario I actually
presented.  Japan had no oil and was busy starving.


> Do you really think we could have pulled off such a blockade during the
> Cold War with China and the Soviet Union right off of Japan's coast?
>

Why not?  What were China and the Soviet Union going to do?  Run the
blockade because they liked Japan so much?


> I think the idea that the bombing wasn't THE factor in the surrender is
> extremely wishful thinking.
>

Yet that is what is maintained by several people who should know - people
who were directly involved in the decision.  Perhaps they are unreliable,
but that could be true of anybody.


> There was likely a  Japanese ministers or two who thought privately that
> surrender would be a good idea. But the military and emperor called the
> shots.  If the Japanese didn't surrender after the loss of Okinawa, it is
> improbable that they would have capitulated to the loss of some small
> islands (which the Soviets didn't take until after Hiroshima). And anyway,
> they didn't surrender after the loss of those islands. They surrendered
> after Nagasaki.
>

The Soviets invaded Manchuria (a sizeable land area, not some small islands)
right about the same time as Nagasaki.  Again, Wikipedia with the info.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20110119/ee72dbbd/attachment.htm>

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net