Moral Combat

[clownfishdesign]

Sometimes you pick up a book that is so good, you just can't believe that you got it so cheap from the bargain table at your favourite bookshop. Such a books is one I've almost finished reading, Michael Burleigh's Moral Combat: a history of World War IIIt's been a long read, partly because it is quite a large book, partly because I've had to read

Comments

[sylo_tode]

I can certainly see the rationale behind dropping the first atomic bomb. It's the second one I have a problem with. Waiting just three days?

[clownfishdesign]

'The Japanese government prevaricated as it absorbed the shocking news ... the Japanese miscalculated that the US had only one bomb so they resolved to tough it out. Even those who thought of surrender were busy devising conditions which the US would never accept'.

It's also worth bearing in mind that there were four devices planned. A third, for Tokyo, was ready to go when the Japanese finally capitulated.

[sylo_tode]

It's not necessarily the dropping of a second bomb, it's waiting only three days to do it. Nearly 70 years ago, three days for something like that would almost be like waiting one hour today.

[clownfishdesign]

Well, they were monitoring Japanese coded communications - which they had secretly broken, so they knew exactly what the Japanese were saying privately.

They'd also made an ultimatum of surrender or 'complete and utter destruction' on July 26th, which the Japanese had rejected 'with contempt' two days later, so three days may not have been too unreasonable. Indeed, the Japanese offer of surrender came just two days after Nagasaki.

All in all, it's a bit hard to second-guess after 70 years, especially after a hemoclysm (as it's been called) like WWII.