People only vote yes because like good old canned bread they are stupid and love America. Or they like to show how smart they are are by saying a "nuclear bombs looks bad to an idiot, but when u are like me and do 100hours of research and compile a small report you see that MURICA IS RIGHT. As per usual. According to some of of u American loving idiots America is ALWAYS right/best at everything.
@biggest_pro_going Your saying that people who provide a substantial amount of evidence to support their argument are stupid? That is called having a sound argument. You may have one if you actually used evidence instead of simple minded propaganda.
I am British and their is no anti American propaganda here. Also it does not matter if someone provides a source or not as on the Internet people can make what ever they want. I could make a page and say North Korea had 1000 nuclear bombs then someone else could use that as a source.
@Biggest_Pro_Going, you learn how to tell the difference between reliable sources and nonsense by the time you're 15 years old. Your denial of the evidence is just showing that you will remain anti America, simply because you want to.
Alright, the United States could have just waited for results and done nothing as the Soviet Union declared war on Japan. Japan refused to surrender after they noticed the first atomic bomb being dropped on Hiroshima and surrendered after Nagasaki. However, the Soviet Union declared war and invaded Manchuria on the same day of Nagasaki. The Japanese were relying on neutrality with the Soviet Union for survival and a mediator for peace. So when Stalin declared war on Japan, Japan's leadership was shocked more than the atomic bombing and Hirohito pleaded for surrender to his military commanders(who ran the nation) and many, only out of loyalty to their Emperor, decided to have Japan surrender.
Eisenhower never approved of the atomic bombings and all these high-ranking military commanders focusing in the Pacific at the time agreed with him. http://www.colorado.edu/AmStudies/lewis/2010/atomicdec.htm
Immediately after the destruction of Hiroshima, Foreign Minister Togo Shigenori proposed in an August 7th cabinet meeting that surrender to the allies should be considered. On August 8th, Prime Minister Suzuki began expressing his own views of ending the war. This is a very different change of policy from before the bombing when they wanted the neutral Soviet Union to negotiate a peace settlement. Many in the administration, and even the emperor himself at one point, agreed that surrender was the best option, but they wanted to negotiate under more favorable conditions. Immediately after the Soviet invasion, nearly all members of the administration agreed that surrender was their only option, when out of nowhere, they get news of the bombing of Nagasaki. These two events stacked on top of each other had such a staggering shock value that the Emperor himself intervened and demanded that Japan surrender to the Allies immediately. All three of these events had a hand in ending the war, and saying that only one was the main cause for surrender is a bit narrow minded.
@ConceptEagle If I have offended you, then I apologize. But focussing on only one aspect of a situation when several exist does fit the definition of narrow minded. It does not mean that you are wrong, just that you've focussed on only one part of the discussion. And if we are talking about the main causes of Japan's surrender, the pacification of their Navy at Midway and its following battles at the hands of the US Navy could be seen as the most significant contributor. Once Japan lost their ability to fight back, some form of surrender was inevitable. Everything else just speed up the process.