soc.history.war.world-war-ii

On Tue, 08 Apr 2008 11:08:25 -0400, Robert Warinner
wrote:

>I would not defend Hasegawa's thesis to the death but he does marshall a
>certain amount of evidence to support it.

Hasegawa's thesis has been substantially criticised for, amongst other
things, dubious use of original souce material.

http://www.bu.edu/historic/hs/kort.html

>It is a mistake to think that Japan's surrender as some kind of rational
>calculation; destroying X cities, sinking Y ships, capturing Z islands,
>dropping N thousand tons of bombs and incendaries would result in 1 Japanese
>capitulation.

I agree there wasn't a direct immediate mechanistic link, in that
Action A produced causual result B with no immediate complications and
without the influence of other historical factors. Nonetheless, this
is a commonplace of historical explanation, and the fundamental
reality remains that the Japanese surrender in WW2 was contingent upon
the atomic bombings.

>In that situation, and given the lack of contemporary records of the decision,
>Hasegawa does make a defensible case.

Like many commentators of the atomic bombings, Hasegawa appears to be
utilising historical enquiry to reinterpret events for contemporary
political reasons.

Gavin Bailey

--

WinXP great improvement. Now take less time than ever before
for PC to say 'Registry corrupt. System halted.' - Bart Kwan En