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 22, 2024, 10:45:40 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 27875 times)
MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!
Kalwejt
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,380


« on: March 27, 2019, 06:34:56 AM »


The thing is dropping the bomb, while a step of historical importance, was not the only factor that prompted Japanese surrender. Soviet entry into the war is often cited as at least as much of a factor. Tokyo was horrified with the speed the Red Army destroyed their forces in the mainland and preferred complete surrender to the Americans rather than face the Soviet invasion.

Also, I believe it was no one else than General Arnold that said at one point that with a total air superiority and the ability of essentially raze cities by conventional means, Japan would've been forced to surrender sooner or later anyway, without a need for the invasion. By that time, a very, very few Japanese officials contemplated "never surrender, carry on" notion. The difference was whether to swallow full capitulation or try to use the fact the mainland was still well-fortified to negotiate. It's likely the former faction would prevail in time with the Emperor's support.

This is all, of course, just a big what-if scenario, and given all the information, as well as the mood of the time, I think Truman made a right call. Also, from strictly cynical point of view, the world had to see on its own eyes what the atomic bombs are and what they could do.
Logged
MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!
Kalwejt
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,380


« Reply #1 on: March 29, 2019, 04:23:26 PM »

On a personal note, my father served in WWII and then again in Korea. When the troops were assembling to go to Korea, my dad was in position to see the plans for the invasion of Japan. Those plans were detailed to the unit level and included a casualty estimate by unit. His WWII unit was slated for the second amphibious wave of the initial invasion of Honshu, and was estimated to have 90% casualties. There was also no desire in the US to prolong the conflict through blockades or other diplomatic means after 4 years of fighting.

Needless to say I'm biased towards the option that was taken, since the odds are against my existence had the invasion been used as planned.

I wonder what was your dad's rank and clearance if he, despite being slated to take a place in the landings, was able to see it. Not something the brass would want the soldiers to know I think.
Logged
MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!
Kalwejt
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,380


« Reply #2 on: March 29, 2019, 04:30:20 PM »

Dropping the bombs! Although I am more of the persuasion that the targets should have been more military than civilian. Anyway, in my opinion the bomb is responsible for the relative peace the world has seen since the end of the Second World War. That's a good thing.

Heaven can wait, we're only watching the skies.

Unfortunately the line between military and civilian targets can be pretty blurry, given it's pretty common for a major population centers to be strategic communication routes, points of troop concentration and military industrial sites.
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 0.03 seconds with 15 queries.