4 ms·

I don't get this point. You realize how many civilians would've died if a land invasion happened? The war was so bloody, and so intense that it is completely in

I don't get this point. You realize how many civilians would've died if a land invasion happened? The war was so bloody, and so intense that it is completely insane to expect the US to not only launch an extremely costly invasion thay would destroy Japan, but also lose hundreds of thousands of its own soldiers in the process. And yeah I know the argument was that japan was about to surrender anyways (which is just not true even then), but that's complete hindsight even if it was true. It's also awfully convenient, and quite the coincidence that the Japanese state went from absolutely unwilling to surrender and still preparing for a fight until the end to willing to surrender on the Allies terms right when the nukes were dropped... but would've done so anyways? Do you also think the russians shouldn't have bombed berlin when they were engaged in the extremely intense battle there? Or that the US shouldn't have bombed Germany at all? I guess you might say yes but that's also because you don't have to then send your own troops to a certain death.

csb6 4y ago
The land invasion vs. atomic bombings is objectively a false dichotomy. The U.S. closely monitored Japanese diplomatic cables, and knew that they were seeking a peace treaty negotiated by the USSR, who was still officially neutral. The Soviet Union invaded Manchuria hours before the second bomb dropped. The goal of the bombings was clearly to posture against the Soviets and reduce their role in the peace process, not to reduce Japanese civilian casualties. The U.S. disregard for civilian deaths is well-documented by the various bombing campaigns they undertook in Japan throughout the war, such as the fire-bombing of Tokyo.
- mardifoufs 4y ago
  I'm not sure why you're framing that PoV as the undeniable truth when it is far from the current consensus. And yes, manchuria was invaded but considering the fact that even after that AND the first nuke, the japanese government wasn't willing to surrender... that point is completely moot. It's pure speculation, and not an objective fact.
  - csb6 4y ago
    The two atomic bombings and a home island invasion undeniably were not the only two options available to end the war. That is what I said was a fact. For example, the U.S. could have continued conventional bombing, or installed a blockade around the home islands, or negotiated a treaty, or any number of military and diplomatic actions not involving the irradiation of two large cities. Japan was at the mercy of the Allies at that point, not the other way around. You can argue that it was the best option available (I strongly disagree), but the atomic bombings or a large scale invasion of the home islands were definitely not the only two options, as frequently claimed by apologists. Also, it is not historically accurate to claim that Japan was not showing interest in surrendering after the first bombing. Even before the first bombing, the cabinet was split between civilian officials who wanted a treaty and hardliners who wanted to continue the war. As I said earlier, Japan was sending out diplomatic feelers to try and negotiate a peace, even if their leadership was divided.

csb6 4y ago

The land invasion vs. atomic bombings is objectively a false dichotomy. The U.S. closely monitored Japanese diplomatic cables, and knew that they were seeking a peace treaty negotiated by the USSR, who was still officially neutral. The Soviet Union invaded Manchuria hours before the second bomb dropped. The goal of the bombings was clearly to posture against the Soviets and reduce their role in the peace process, not to reduce Japanese civilian casualties. The U.S. disregard for civilian deaths is well-documented by the various bombing campaigns they undertook in Japan throughout the war, such as the fire-bombing of Tokyo.

mardifoufs 4y ago
I'm not sure why you're framing that PoV as the undeniable truth when it is far from the current consensus. And yes, manchuria was invaded but considering the fact that even after that AND the first nuke, the japanese government wasn't willing to surrender... that point is completely moot. It's pure speculation, and not an objective fact.
- csb6 4y ago
  The two atomic bombings and a home island invasion undeniably were not the only two options available to end the war. That is what I said was a fact. For example, the U.S. could have continued conventional bombing, or installed a blockade around the home islands, or negotiated a treaty, or any number of military and diplomatic actions not involving the irradiation of two large cities. Japan was at the mercy of the Allies at that point, not the other way around. You can argue that it was the best option available (I strongly disagree), but the atomic bombings or a large scale invasion of the home islands were definitely not the only two options, as frequently claimed by apologists. Also, it is not historically accurate to claim that Japan was not showing interest in surrendering after the first bombing. Even before the first bombing, the cabinet was split between civilian officials who wanted a treaty and hardliners who wanted to continue the war. As I said earlier, Japan was sending out diplomatic feelers to try and negotiate a peace, even if their leadership was divided.