Aaron Tovish
2 min readAug 2, 2023


I think there is one point that all the commentors (and many authors) have missed. Let's say the Germany was as dedicated to building the Bomb as the USA. It is then reasonable to conjecture that it would have taken Germany at least as long as America. It then follows that they would have been defeated before they got a usable device. (Hilter's disinterest validated.) Indeed, probably even earlier because of all the resources that would have been diverted to the project.

Now twist this back on the Manhattan Project. How much sooner could the US Armed Force have defeated the Japanese Imperial Army had not billions of dollars and so many scientific brains been poured into the Manhattan Project?

So IS IT ANY WONDER that Groves and company were desperate to have the Bomb dropped on Japan before it could surrender? Can you imagine the scandal when Congress found out that all those resources had been waste while GIs were dying on the beaches and in the jungles?

They just HAD to make a big show; a demonstration test wouldn't cut it. So, just chalk up another 200,000 civilians in a war that was already compiling such numbers on a regular basis. (WWII is a litany of war crimes by all parties.)

Historical research has established as a fact that it was Russia's entry into the Pacific Theater that prompted the Emperor to personally attended his first war council, NOT Hiroshima. But the Emperor unwittingly handed Groves and company a huge boost by lying that it was the Bomb that forced his surrender. (His aim, actully, was to shield the military from the Japanese public's condemnation for fighting a losing war.)

No nuclear "weapon" (more properly barbaric terror device) has contributed in any material way to a military campaign, yet nine countries continue to pour precious resources into them. Go figure!