DeltaboundRedux

Excellent example of first order thinking.

Your 6th grade public school teacher was superb.

Thank you.

TransWorld

My father, in Europe, was being made ready to invade the streets of Tokyo. He would be engaged in hand to hand combat. He would be killed, I would not have been born. Exactly what President Truman said. It saved the lives of a million of our boys, and untold numbers of Japanese women and children.

The 200,000 deaths in Hiroshima and Nagasaki prevented millions being killed, on both sides. That was at least a 10:1 savings of lives.

SonicFlyer

Except that invasion wasn't necessary. The Japanese were already defeated at that point.

DeltaboundRedux

Appreciate the personal history and the civil response.

Now discuss the back channel peace proposal by the Japanese given to MacArthur prior to Yalta that would have given the US 99% of its demands but was shot down HARD by an ailing Roosevelt concerned about post WWII world order where the countries that mattered would be divided between the Soviets and the US.

"Unconditional Surrender" cost countless lives for no reason, both in Germany and Japan. Established US dominance in both post war, however. Can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs and all that.

(The Soviets were well on their way to producing their own, probably better and more efficient, bomb by Yalta anyway. "Demonstrating it to scare the Soviets" was a justification after the fact.)

The "it saved lives" for the general public made complete sense in 1945. 75 years later, not so much.

Racist propaganda [modern lens] that was effective in the 1940's (Kill the Jap!) made sense and was arguably necessary as a rallying cry back then. But the ruling Japanese weren't so brainwashed that they were going to see everything burn to the ground pre-atomic bomb. Negotiations that were heavily tilted in the Allies favor were very achievable.

Truman thought otherwise. Modern minds disagree.

SonicFlyer

Thank you for demonstrating your knowledge and understanding of history! Im glad someone else around here gets it.

Pervis

Hind sight supposedly brings clarity the present fails to present. But hind site is also very deceiving. Woulda coulda shoulda comes to mind. Since we’re so crappy at learning from the past, what’s the point arguing about it. Well never know, will we.

Rama

Modern minds have the luxury of hindsight.
In reality, it would have been an ugly push for ground troops to win a war in Japan. Their military and even lower level soldiers were committed to death
It is always easy to point fingers and be judgemental after the fact. What actually may have happened without two nukes is debatable, but to simply say the outcome would have been better does not align with reality.

TransWorld

I would add, if someone thinks a land invasion of the Japanese islands would not have occurred, here is a fact often not pointed out. The military commissioned 500,000 Purple Hearts be made, as a first round, with more to come.

That amount handled all wounded in the Korean War, Vietnam War, Desert Storm, up through current wounded. Kind of puts that in perspective.

crbnftprnt

[QUOTE=DeltaboundRedux;

(The Soviets were well on their way to producing their own, probably better and more efficient, bomb by Yalta anyway. "Demonstrating it to scare the Soviets" was a justification after the fact.)

The Soviets did not explode a nuclear weapon til 1949.

QUOTE: The "it saved lives" for the general public made complete sense in 1945. 75 years later, not so much.[/QUOTE]

Your statement makes no sense.

DeltaboundRedux

In the Potsdam conference of 1945, Truman told Stalin the US had successfully tested the atomic bomb. Stalin already knew; the US Manhattan Project was riddled with communist spies who were feeding information back to the USSR. Communism was extremely popular among the smart set in the early 1900’s.

The aforementioned book “The Making of the Atomic Bomb” by Richard Rhodes goes into this: Soviet physicists had so much data from the Manhattan Project they were convinced they could build a better one. Stalin didn’t want any embarrassing failures, so they just duplicated the American design. Their second one was much more efficient.

Knowing the US had a super weapon in the making, the USSR didn’t enter the Pacific theater until 1945. “Cheap Grace”, as they say. A seat at the table with no risk to themselves….after massive US aid from the US (fun fact: The Soviets were given massive amounts of US war material and aid for free. The US collected payments for lend-lease and reconstruction from the UK until…2006.)

Think about that. The Soviets, with over 20 MILLION men under arms and Germany surrendered, formally committed to war with Japan when they were already on the ropes. (admittedly, our "allies" the Soviets were heavily engaged in raping every woman between the ages of 8 and 80 in Germany, but still)

But somehow, they'd never surrender so the atomic bomb just had to be dropped on a couple of civilian towns with no war making capacity or strategic value.

“The myths of history are more powerful than the facts of history” to paraphrase Julius Evola.

While it might not have been fair expect the common man to question leadership decisions in 1945, there’s a whole lot more information available now.

It’s not academic either; the US has never committed to a no “first use” policy. Read some books, judge American ruling elites from the past who made decisions that killed millions and ask yourself if they’re any more discriminating now. Or if they’re being even remotely honest.