Was talking to a friend of mine about the use of nukes and I was told about how it was the quicker way to save more lives. I’ve always heard this argument but still always believed that it was an extreme response that could have been avoided.

Am I naive in my thoughts here? What is everyone else’s interpretation of the events leading up to and the decision made to drop both bombs?

  • emizeko [they/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
    7·
    6 months ago

    The Bomb Didn’t Beat Japan, Stalin Did | Foreign Policy Magazine

    Hiroshima is a Lie | CounterPunch

    Weeks before the first bomb was dropped, on July 13, 1945, Japan had sent a telegram to the Soviet Union expressing its desire to surrender and end the war. The United States had broken Japan’s codes and read the telegram. Truman referred in his diary to “the telegram from removed Emperor asking for peace.” President Truman had been informed through Swiss and Portuguese channels of Japanese peace overtures as early as three months before Hiroshima. Japan objected only to surrendering unconditionally and giving up its emperor, but the United States insisted on those terms until after the bombs fell, at which point it allowed Japan to keep its emperor. So, the desire to drop the bombs may have lengthened the war. The bombs did not shorten the war.