And it's just obvious. The arguments defending the dropping of the bombs are overall very bad.>The bombs were necessary to force Japan to surrenderThat's false. An American report concluded as early as 1946 that Japan would have surrendered by November 1945 at the latest even without the atomic bombs.We now know that the Soviet Union's entry into the war, with which the Japanese were still trying to negotiate (which the Americans knew, by the way), probably had more impact than the bombs. Which makes perfect sense, for that matter.The idea that the Japanese were fanatics who would have fought to the last man doesn't hold up when you look at what actually happened.>The bombs saved lives because the invasion of Japan would have been even deadlierThat's false, obviously. The bombs only killed people. This line of thinking is reassuring for Americans who can imagine that Truman was faced with a gigantic trolley problem and made the rational choice. But that's not what happened. At no point did the American decision-makers hesitate to drop the bombs. They were absolutely not opposed to the invasion but were meant to go hand in hand with it. This idea also stems from hindsight knowledge. We know that Japan surrendered after two bombs. The Americans at the time had no idea and were planning to drop even more.There was never any desire to minimize civilian casualties—quite the contrary.If the Americans truly wanted to cause as few deaths as possible, they should have, as Stimson proposed, reassured Japan about the fate of the emperor rather than insisting on unconditional surrender. The first draft of the Potsdam Declaration mentioned it directly, but it was removed by Truman. Grey went even further and wanted to warn the Japanese in advance that the use of the atomic bomb was imminent.
>>18123999>The idea that the Japanese were fanatics who would have fought to the last man doesn't hold up when you look at what actually happened.Catastrophically, hilariously false. The entire Pacific theater consisted of killing almost every single Japanese soldier followed by the survivors killing themselves. They were rabidly and fanatically desperate. The surrender came after a series of absolute calamities occurring over a matter of days, of which the bombs were an important part. Even then, the government proper didn't surrender, the until-then powerless emperor finally pulled the plug and was STILL targeted by a coup attempt for it.The Japanese were always going to fight until they couldn't anymore, and then keep going anyway. Overwhelming force on every available front was the only way to exhaust them into surrender.>That's false, obviously.You really like being confidently wrong about things. You mentioned a US report claiming the Japs probably would have surrendered by 1946, where's mention of the report that it'd cost a million American lives to invade?The Americans were also not prepared to drop more bombs. They would have liked to, but they didn't have any more. They were hoping the bluff would work because they couldn't actually follow through and they really wanted to avoid a land invasion. Everyone wants to avoid land invasions, especially when they've been doing that the entire war and it's awful because their enemies are ruthless and do not ever surrender. They do not need to swear off land invasions entirely to prefer avoiding land invasions.>There was never any desire to minimize civilian casualties—quite the contrary.Nonetheless, Japan was losing more people to starvation by that point than had been killed directly, so a quicker end to the war undeniably saved lives.
>>18124021>The surrender came after a series of absolute calamities occurring over a matter of days, of which the bombs were an important partYeah, so the Japanese had been bombed and weren't going to surrender. But one big bomb changed everything and they reconsidered. It doesn't make sense. It's now the historical consensus that the soviet invasion played a bigger part in the surrender.>where's mention of the report that it'd cost a million American lives to invade?Nowhere. Because the report said that Japan was going to surrender even without an american invasion or a soviet attack.>Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplatedIt's actually a well known document.>The Americans were also not prepared to drop more bombs. Of course they were. That's the only decision Truman took, to stop further bombings after Nagasaki.
>>18123999War crimes don't exist dumbass, they're just useful for ethical posturing, especially against a defeated side in a war. The only real dynamic in play is deterrence, and I would suggest that using it before MAD was established helped reinforce its strength when it eventually emerged, potentially saving countless lives.
nigga the yanks didnt have to invade they could just firebomb and firebomb until every city was burned down, the navy and airforce no longer existed and blockade. The nuclear bombs did the same thing as firebombing and the japanese were just as hard pressed to stop either. the nukes made no difference at all. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed just as almost every other city had already been.The real reason for the Japanese surrender was the Soviet declaration of war. They would much much rather a US occupation to a Soviet one
Stop killing your enemies, its a war crime.
>>18124355In another thread you're crying and dilating about browns destroying your race. Muh might makes right until you're the one being victimized.
