Quote:
Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45
|
Of which the title is. "
Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki".
That tells me historians
do not agree
Quote:
|
He has mined Japanese and Russian literature and documentation and, despite much that is based on surmise, provides fresh insight into the extraordinary inability of Japanese leaders to surrender, and into Stalin's machinations aimed at maximizing Soviet territorial gains in East Asia.
|
So after 60 years and detailed research into Jap and Red archives, he's come up with this surmise.
Now, you think Truman should have had the same surmise, with access to neither? Get real.
That's the same link as the first one. Ike was in Europe, hardly in a position to know what was happening in Japan. Don't forget, while we are at war, the military brass are heros. But when the war ends they are yesterdays news, and sometimes unemployed.
The bottom line is, your statement;
Quote:
|
Russia and the former USSR have been bitter enemies ever since the end of WWII and the US has shown that it will be willing to do anything to get the upper hand in this war including dropping atomic bombs on already beaten countries and supplying Islamic extremist with weapons to fight against their Soviet invaders.
|
is preposterous.