|Captain America Message Board >> View Post|
Subj: Re: Captain America, Hiroshima and Chuck Austen..
Posted: Fri Sep 22, 2017 at 09:08:06 am EDT (Viewed 99 times)
Reply Subj: Re: Captain America, Hiroshima and Chuck Austen..
Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2017 at 07:19:33 pm EDT (Viewed 100 times)
Well, yes it was psychological warfare... to save lives. The idea was to scare them so much (Dresden being the obvious example they hoped would spring to mind) they would surrender. Especially given that Japanese architecture was practically designed to burn.
It obviously didn't work.
As for the leaflets... I don't know what to tell you. I once saw an interview with a survivor that mentioned getting one. Now This was a fairly average looking survivor talking about a major historical event. That can bring people out of the wood work who aren't exactly truthful about there location.
However, the Japanese have lied and denied so much about what they did in WWII, to the point they don't even (nor have they ever) teach it in their schools.
They are the kings of revisionist history to hide their truly disturbing atrocities (I would recommend 'The Rape of Nan King' if you are curious, and the name doesn't even scratch the surface of that one in a long list). As such, I'm usually suspicious about such claims that may shift guilt.
But they did send specific warnings to the government (yes not mentioning the atomic bomb the first time) to try and coax a surrender. In fact it was actually the third such call about a non-existent bomb falling on Tokyo, that really caused a surrender.
One rumor I always wondered if it were true or not, is that Truman asked to see photos of what Hiroshima looked like (including the people) before Nagasaki, so he would be able to know exactly what he did and if he would do it again. This maybe true statesmen supposedly inspired Ozymandias in Watchmen wanting to view what he did to New York and "experience every death."
Like I said though, the action, and the release of the nuclear genie is certainly not to be taken lightly, and I can certainly see both as reasons that one could see the cost not being worth the benefit. Even if I don't agree.
I would only ever condemn a shallow level of thought either way, which you I sense do not have.