The predicted Allied casualties for a mainland invasion of Japan were so high, especially with regard to the civilian fanaticism witnessed throughout the Island-hopping Campaign, the right choice was using the Atomic Bomb. After use of the first atomic bomb, when Japan failed to yield and refused to surrender, the return to consideration to a homeland invasion, along with running the numbers of anticipated Allied casualties, made using the second Atomic Bomb the correct choice. The best choice was made, with regard to the information on hand at the time.
The predicted Allied casualties for a mainland invasion of Japan were so high
Those estimates were made after the fact, in response to criticism. In reality, a mainland invasion was never in the cards at all. It’s a myth. There’s nothing about it in any of the letters or journals of the people making the decisions. There were two actual alternatives to the bomb:
Cooperating more with the Soviets. The Japanese refused to surrender in part because they were holding out a desperate hope that the USSR would intercede as a neutral third party in peace negotiations, when in fact they were just stalling for time while they redeployed their troops from Europe to Asia. The US and USSR had planned to issue a joint declaration calling for Japan to surrender at Potsdam, but Truman pulled out at the last minute when he heard that the bomb had been tested successfully. The soviet declaration of war was only days apart from the dropping of the bombs and the Japanese surrender.
Accepting conditional, rather than unconditional surrender. The Japanese had already offered to surrender on the sole condition that the emperor not be tried for war crimes. The US had every intention of doing that, and it’s what they actually did after the war. However, Truman had promised “unconditional surrender” and he wanted the newspapers to call it that.
The decision was all about prestige and politics and not sharing the spotlight. It wasn’t necessary.
This is a very long video about it but it’s very informative and well sourced.
The predicted Allied casualties for a mainland invasion of Japan were so high, especially with regard to the civilian fanaticism witnessed throughout the Island-hopping Campaign, the right choice was using the Atomic Bomb. After use of the first atomic bomb, when Japan failed to yield and refused to surrender, the return to consideration to a homeland invasion, along with running the numbers of anticipated Allied casualties, made using the second Atomic Bomb the correct choice. The best choice was made, with regard to the information on hand at the time.
Those estimates were made after the fact, in response to criticism. In reality, a mainland invasion was never in the cards at all. It’s a myth. There’s nothing about it in any of the letters or journals of the people making the decisions. There were two actual alternatives to the bomb:
Cooperating more with the Soviets. The Japanese refused to surrender in part because they were holding out a desperate hope that the USSR would intercede as a neutral third party in peace negotiations, when in fact they were just stalling for time while they redeployed their troops from Europe to Asia. The US and USSR had planned to issue a joint declaration calling for Japan to surrender at Potsdam, but Truman pulled out at the last minute when he heard that the bomb had been tested successfully. The soviet declaration of war was only days apart from the dropping of the bombs and the Japanese surrender.
Accepting conditional, rather than unconditional surrender. The Japanese had already offered to surrender on the sole condition that the emperor not be tried for war crimes. The US had every intention of doing that, and it’s what they actually did after the war. However, Truman had promised “unconditional surrender” and he wanted the newspapers to call it that.
The decision was all about prestige and politics and not sharing the spotlight. It wasn’t necessary.
This is a very long video about it but it’s very informative and well sourced.
Least rabid and bloodthirsty imperial dog
I’m not interested in your American propaganda protecting American innocence.
wrong
You think killing anywhere from 150,000 to 246,000 civilians to kill 10,000 military personnel is good?