Dropping the atomic bombs vs. an American invasion of Japan (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 23, 2024, 11:00:44 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  Dropping the atomic bombs vs. an American invasion of Japan (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: Which would have been more preferable to you?
#1
An American invasion of the home islands
 
#2
The dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 139

Author Topic: Dropping the atomic bombs vs. an American invasion of Japan  (Read 27889 times)
🦀🎂🦀🎂
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,330
Kiribati


« on: March 12, 2019, 01:31:58 PM »

It's a false dichotomy.
Logged
🦀🎂🦀🎂
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,330
Kiribati


« Reply #1 on: March 12, 2019, 05:35:06 PM »


Who is they? The scientists who developed the bombs? They were certainly not ok with it. The military? Not hugely - both Eisenhower, Nimitz and LeMay considered the Japanese effectively defeated already (and LeMay was not a man who was dovish in that regards). It's honestly shocking how many people - to this day - will naively repeat the Truman admin's justifications and their mysterious numbers as gospel.

The Japanese were a defeated power by 1945. Their military was dismembered, they had no raw resources and their cabinet was clearly trying to find ways to raise white flags without losing face. If I'm honest, a lot of the discourse relies on this weird racial trope that the Japanese are a naturally fanatical people (and if this notion that the Japanese would have all gone willingly to their deaths for the sake of Nippon is true, then why would the bombs even matter to begin with? It makes no sense).

The real reason the bombs were dropped had less to do with Japan, and more with what Truman (correctly) sensed would occur after WW2: a protracted showdown between the superpowers, and ensuring that the US could dictate terms of surrender. Why did the government explicitly rule out targeting a military base or giving a warning first (both actions which could have "demonstrated power" without leading to as many civilian deaths)? It was a show of strength - the US wanted to say that it had no qualms against using them in the future.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.028 seconds with 14 queries.