[lbo-talk] Yoshie? (or anybody else who knows about Japanese history?)

[Jordan Hayes]

> Now, when you place all these facts (and, no doubt,
> several others I'm leaving out) back into the
> super-heated context of 1945 the standard story that
> two atomic bomb droppings - and those two bombs alone
> - were the necessary and sufficient cause of Japan's
> surrender begins to weaken considerably.

I think the only thing that you can say about the attack on Hiroshima 
was that it _did_ end the war, not that it was the only way it could 
have ended or that it was even necessary.  So I'd say: sufficient.  The 
decision of 'unconditional surrender' was pretty well made before the 
attack on Nagasaki.  Gar Alperovitz has spent a career building a (IMHO, 
pretty good) case that it wasn't necessary, but I don't think there's 
any discussion whether it was sufficient (even within what I've read of 
Hasegawa's work on the subject).  Gar's book is great, but if you don't 
have the time to read a 1000 page book, check out this site; I think it 
answers a lot of what the current thought about all those issues is.

http://www.doug-long.com/debate.htm

For instance, the "shock value of the Soviet entry into the war" (which 
was Truman's stated reason for going to Potsdam) is discussed at length.

/jordan