Hiroshima: necessary?

Yeah, but how did it even come about? How often did Germany and Japan cross paths? How did this come up? "By the way, we want to take over the world, you in?"

I have recently been reading Catastrophe by Max Hastings, which delivers what you are requesting, but for WW1 as an unravelling theatre of death with lots of splendid period flavour. I'd guess there is a similar WW2 type book somewhere. probably try the book thread.

There was a lot of debate internal to the Nazi party. Germany had a policy of siding with and sending advisors to aid the Kuomintang in their suppression of the Chinese communist party. Hitler thought the Japanese military government were more potent anti-communists, hence the Anti-comintern Pact of 1936, followed very shortly by the second Sino-Japanese War in 1937.

Its easy to forget these days that in 1937, Germany was a serious player in the far east, with the leased territory of Qingdao, trade ports at Hankou, Beihai, and Harbin, and missionaries travelling the interior. Everyone (including America) had their fingers in the Chinese pie at the time. Indeed WWII was as much created by the China grab and post-1918 anti-Communism as it was by resentment over the Versailles Treaty. Germany, or at least Hitler, thought they could get a better deal from Tokyo than Chiang Kai-shek,

I'm really skeptical of any "the Japanese would have fought tooth and nail for every inch of Japan" argument - some of them quickly verge into racism, but even the ones that don't seem to assume that "the Japanese," having been programmed for tenacious, relentless civilian defense, would all stay in that mode forever, regardless of whatever else developed, unless what developed was an atomic bomb, in which case they would all switch over to being okay with surrendering. It kinda doesn't compute on its face, but it also just imagines that, had the war continued, it would have been somehow ahistorical and continuous in its progress, nothing changes, the ongoing invasion and the ramping-up of the already-severe deprivations and limitations of civilian life as a result of the water have no effect on the home front.... You'd think even just the Soviets declaring war on Japan would have been a game-changer.

The surrender of Japan hinged entirely on the decisions of the Supreme Council for the Direction of the War and the emperor. It was never a matter of the Japanese people being programmed for tenacious, relentless civilian defense, but more a matter of disobedience to authority being so socially unacceptable as to verge on the unthinkable. The people were heartily weary of the war and dreaded being asked to make further sacrifices, but they would have obeyed.

this is a good read

http://whowhatwhy.org/2016/05/25/classic-hiroshima-bombing-gets-hollywood-makeover/

i've always found the 'it was necessary to avoid more bloodshed' a convenient yet unconvincing excuse but i haven't done enough reading on the subject.

anything of recommendation on either side of the aisle?

bugger "both sides", if you want to know about the bomb and how decisions on when and where to use it were made you need to check out alex wellerstein, full stop.

thanks

a thread from last year, pretty informative:

Today is the 74th anniversary of the bombing of Nagasaki. Often overlooked, compared to Hiroshima, as merely the "second" atomic bomb, the Nagasaki attack is far more tricky, and important, in several ways. THREAD pic.twitter.com/UQYoz6ftzN

— Alex Wellerstein (@wellerstein) August 9, 2019