Would you have used the atom bomb on Japan in WWII if you were Prez?

You lost this one son. Everyone knows Russia had no capability to invade Japan even at the beginning of the war. By the end it was impossible. Read your own reference. I feel bad for you

 

"You lost this one"

Says the guy who tried to claim that Russia had no navy when that is clearly not true. As I said. Youre done son. You've lost all credibility. You're roasted yourself.

 

Not really, the Japanese still had something over a million troops, well supplied veterans, in Manchuria, who had been virtually untouched by the war since they invaded in the 1930's. Somehow getting these back home and throwing them into the fray was a big part of their hopes that we could be convinced to spare the Emperor, who everybody, including the Emperor, thought we were going to hang immediately. (Hirohito was actually brave about it, he didn't want the war to continue for his sake and offered himself up to MacArthur immediately after the surrender).

I don't have a primary source and don't even remember the secondary, but I did read an article where a cadre of younger officers was going to stage a coup to keep the surrender from going through, but stopped when they heard Manchuria was invaded.

Not everyone was a kamikaze, most Japanese saw the war was over and didn't want to die, but a lot of the more fanatical officers were willing to fight to the last drop of everyone else's blood ( they are a lot like us after all). Suicides were often bolstered by the fact that the regular population had been told we were going to eat them, at best

To return to the topic, it's really hard for us to see how Truman went through with it, seeing what we know now, but it's hard to blame him when you remember what they knew then, Nobody really knew how much devastation the bomb would actually cause (though they had a good idea) and they also were really unaware of how close the Japanese were to a bomb themselves ( they had more cyclotrons than anybody but us before the war) , so it was thought that a demonstration might just be showing them that theirs would work too. (Stories persist that the Japanese actually tested one, in North Korea, and that we've never been able to get to the area to see the scars)

 

No navy? Did you take crazy pills? Lol. What ships would they have used for this invasion? Exactly which ones. This is laughable

 

Gentlemen, please remember that although the Soviet Union didn't have an enormous Navy, it was closely allied to the United States and the other allies by the end of the war. Stalin very conveniently declared "war" on an already destroyed Empire of Japan AFTER the U. S. (primarily) had done nearly ALL the "heavy lifting" in the effort. If nothing else, Stalin would have been bellyaching that WE should provide ships for him to use to send his forces into Japan itself -- and feel perfectly justified in doing so. After all, we were big buddies and "allies"....

Truman didn't want Stalin to come rushing up at the last instant claiming a huge amount of Japanese territory and other "spoils". We didn't want the Soviets taking over Manchuria or being brash enough to try to take over some or ALL of Japan itself -- like they had taken over all of Eastern Europe and nearly half of Germany.

Stalin was a shrewd and crafty old bastard. Even if he hadn't put a large contingent of Soviet military forces into Japan, if he could have established any kind of presence there at all, he would have been raising hell that the Soviet Union should get half of Japan or something, and expect to get it, too! He'd already made a fool out of Roosevelt at Yalta, and Britain, although "victorious" was almost as ruined, exhausted, and disabled as though they had lost the damned war. Churchill had become very unpopular at home, and he actually lost the next election -- IN 1945!

Truman was alone. He needed to finish Japan off, hold Stalin at bay, and keep the world from coming apart in the aftermath of the worst international series of wars in history. So, he "cut to the chase", dropped two atomic bombs, ended the war quickly, and I would have done exactly the same thing.

 

Now we were going to give the ships to Stalin to invade Japan? This gets better and better! Stalin got to make his claims in Eastern Europe......he could do nothing in Japan. The bomb was unecessary

 

Well said.

- - - Updated - - -

Ummm... we already had given the soviets ships. You again prove you know nothing about the topic.

 

We gave the Soviet navy enough ships prior to the end of the war to invade Japan? You must have taken crazy pills. The USSR did not have the manpower and most definitely the fleet to invade Japan alone. That is hilarious

 

They attacked a military base, we responded by dropping nuclear bombs on two highly populated civilian cities. Unnecessary escalation.

 

russia did not have the atomic bomb, if they claimed japan they would have had to fight the japanese for it and exhaust what little resources they had left.

America should have stood aside longer while the rest of the world got poorer from war, and then dropped the atomic bomb on england and russia since they would have been the winners.

we could have capitalized at their weakest moment when all of their resources were spent on war and today we would not be contested by any nuclear power, and then leverage their resources for Americans instead of having the poorer half of Americans give our resources to build those countries with unfair trade as we do now.

America was and is led by rich people who bow to the queen of england, and they have betrayed the peasant class of Americans whose ancestors defeated england for freedom for all Americans today.

 

So you intentionally ignore the extremely high military significance of both of those targets as well as the fact that we didn't just go from Pearl Harbor to dropping the bombs. You forget about the whole war that raged in between those 2 events? Seriously the lack of education on the subject from the side arguing against the bombs is astounding.

- - - Updated - - -

You claimed that we didn't give them ships or wouldn't, we did. End. Of. Discussion.

 

At the time, it was absolutely necessary. Saving casualties (American and Japanese), as well as sending a strong message to the Soviet Union, who was seriously pondering seizing a slice of Japan for themselves. Imagine a partitioned Japan like Korea.

 

There was zero chance the Russians could any claim over to japan

 

Exactly. We killed for an object lesson, not any military necessity. The morality of that is very, very clear.

 

Or lack thereof

 

To force unconditional surrender upon the Japanese. Operation Downfall had already been planned and set for November 1, 1945.

 

Operation Downfall was already planned and approved by Truman on July 24, 1945.

MacArthur estimated 1 Million American causalities by September 1946.

http://www.kilroywashere.org/006-Pages/Invasion.html

 

So your point is that we dropped the bombs because we wanted unconditional surrender instead of just surrender? Maybe you can explain the difference and why it was worth all those lives.

 

Yes and I am sure America has plans for WW3 but that doesn't make it a reality.

 

I have served, and you cannot deny that some of the senior officers in WW II had a rather cavalier attitude toward combat casualties. You should read Killing Patton.

 

The Soviet port of Vladivostok is pretty close. They could have easily landed some troops on Hokkaido.

 

Not every single one with one exception. That is virtually impossible

- - - Updated - - -

Some troops? with what? Do you know what an invasion force requires?

 

Such bombing is an act of terror, that goes against basic human right to live, a right that was taken not even from just soldiers - but from civilians, unarmed elders, women, infants. Such act is an atrosity, a mass murder - that I would never have commited.

 

Absolutely, no doubt about it.